Uisce Éireann described as ‘biggest mistake' to ever happen in Ireland as Wexford council seeks ways to build in rural areas
With large swathes of the county unsuitable for new housing developments due to a lack of water services, Councillors John Fleming and Michael Sheehan cited potential changes to the County Development Plan (2022-2028) which would allow the council to rezone land for new housing projects.
'The County Development Plan is now open for review and there's an opportunity for this municipal district to have a say in the direction the town and villages will take over the next 15 years,' said Cllr Sheehan. 'There's vast tracts of land in this town that need to be rezoned for housing.'
With regards to providing water services for housing developments which wouldn't have access to the Uisce Éireann (UE) mains, Cllr Marty Murphy said Wexford County Council (WCC) should simply proceed without the national utility company.
'My understanding is small developments in rural areas will be allowed to build their own treatment plants which is fantastic news, because our villages are dying due to planning laws,' he said. 'Do we have villages which will be targeted under that? We need to move on from UE because, as far as I'm concerned, it is the biggest mistake to ever happen in this country.'
In response, a member of WCC planning team said they had not been informed of which villages had been targeted but they would find out and revert back to Cllr Murphy.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Irish Independent
8 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Row over funding and property tax vote breaks out at Arklow council meeting
Arklow councillors convened at their May meeting to vote on the development of projects using a €235,650 pot ring-fenced for discretionary funding allocated to them by Wicklow County Council (WCC) via the Local Property Tax (LPT), which elected WCC members voted to maintain in October, at the same level as the past three years – an upward variation of the basic rate by 6pc. Like three of the four other municipal districts in Wicklow, Arklow MD councillors have traditionally put forward notice of motions, with any projects agreed upon funded through the MD's total discretionary allocation. Before a review of this year's discretionary funded projects could take place, leas cathaoirleach, Cllr Peir Leonard, said that she felt very strongly about 'fairness and equality' and making decisions in a timely manner to ensure 'the best value for every penny of that money for our communities' and every councillor has time to 'consider what they represent and what they want to do with a fair share of money'. 'I would like to propose that we look at doing the discretionary in a different way going forward, and that the discretionary funding is split between the six members so that each member can do projects for their share,' the Independent councillor said. 'They can join other members to pool money for bigger projects. I think Wexford County Council do it that way, and other municipal districts, and I just think it's a fairer way, so people can consider, not be under pressure and plan projects knowing there is some funding to do it on behalf of people they represent.' Nodding in agreement, Cllr Warren O'Toole said that, although all the ideas brought forward in the chamber are 'obviously good ideas', the change would allow 'a broader scope on things'. Noting that it's 'entirely up to the members how it is distributed', district manager Leonora Earls explained that, in Arklow, staff review motions put forth by councillors that were passed and involve physical works, then create a list of projects that district engineer Avril Hill had evaluated and costed. 'We also allocate discretionary funding outside of motions, via correspondence etc,' she added. Concerned that a division of the discretionary fund would lead to a narrower geographical spread of works, cathaoirleach, Cllr Pat Kennedy said: 'I actually think we do it in a very fair way – if we split that among six people, we're not going to have anything to show for it. 'We have two towns and 10 villages, and normally what we try to do is spread it across all of them – that is what we have done every year. If we split that up into six slices of the cake, there will be nothing to show for it anywhere. 'A lot of councillors out there would like to have our system, and it would not be very good for the whole MD if we change it.' ADVERTISEMENT Learn more Interjecting, district administrator Alvina Brehony said that every district is different and that comparisons with Wexford should not be drawn as 'they have a different pot and how it's allocated'. 'Again, it's up to yourselves to decide, but I know speaking with some of your colleagues in their areas, they actually think that this way of doing it is the fairest way,' she added. After Cllr Leonard proposed to put it to a vote, Ms Hill noted that the very nature of notice of motions resulted in a spread of projects across the district, and that her understanding was that discretionary funding was primarily for public realm projects, to which Cllr Leonard said she would be happy to allocate all her share towards public realm projects in a geographical spread 'to make our towns more accessible and user friendly'. Visibly perturbed, Cllr Sylvester Bourke raised the issue of the LPT vote, which was a source of discord in the Arklow chamber in 2023, when a motion put forth by Cllr Leonard was not supported because she had not voted to increase the LPT. 'I think we're forgetting something here – there wouldn't be any discretionary funding unless councillors voted for it in the first place, and some of us voted against discretionary funding,' Cllr Bourke said. 'That doesn't give you the right – it's not your money, and that doesn't give you the right to take all that money,' Cllr O'Toole responded. 'Does it not? I don't know,' Cllr Bourke replied. 'It's a discussion that causes problems for councillors who vote for the discretionary fund, who feel they're being progressive in creating that fund.' 'People like myself, who voted against it, and will vote against it again, and again, and again, I'm representing people that have paid into that, including myself, and I'm representing those people who can't afford that,' Cllr O'Toole said. 'There are other ways of saving money. Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael have wasted a lot of money, but we won't go down them roads.' Responding to the Sinn Féin councillor, Fianna Fáil councillor Pat Fitzgerald said: 'You shouldn't, because there are other people wasting money too over the years', before Cllr O'Toole continued: 'I don't think an argument can be had to say someone who votes against it doesn't have a right to spend it. 'People we represent have elected us. We are spending it on them. 'We all respect each other, and we all want good for our communities. I don't think it's going to be one person deviating away.' Asked to formalise her proposal, Cllr Leonard outlined the change to splitting the discretionary budget, to avoid a lot of pressure to 'railroad stuff through', with each member having the option to pool their money towards projects in a notice of motion. After being asked if all the discretionary-funded motions stretching back to March 2025 would be scrapped, Cllr Leonard reiterated her calls for a postponement of the agenda item. 'This is very rushed, and I think we should postpone until our June meeting and have a workshop about it in between to give everybody time, and then we can come back and vote on it and put the proposals in,' she said. After Cllr Kennedy enquired if the delay would affect contractors' prices for the projects, Ms Hill said that they may need to re-tender for some projects, adding: 'Basically, the longer it goes into the year, the less time you have to do it.' Before looking for an agreement on the postponement, Ms Earls and Ms Brehony highlighted the Baltinglass Municipal District, the only district in the county that divides their discretionary budget, with Ms Brehony saying that she had spoken to colleagues out west, and 'you can't get a whole lot more done for your money'. After Cllr Fitzgerald had said that it was a 'bit late to bring this up now' and that he hadn't 'heard anyone talking about it throughout the year', Cllr Bourke said he didn't agree with the postponement or the proposal. 'I won't be changing my approach, because I have gone out on a political limb at voting time for this LPT,' he continued. 'I don't like having to do it, but it does create that fund. We might as well all give up voting for the LPT and set it at zero if that's the case, because I'm not prepared to see one sixth of it (in all due respect) going to you, Warren and Cllr Leonard. 'I know you represent people, too, but we're the ones who have taken the political hit at voting time. 'I took the hit. You didn't, but you want to spend it equally? That doesn't seem fair to me.' After Cllr O'Toole said that he respected what Cllr Bourke was saying, but 'totally disagreed', the discussion shifted to notice of motions and the quantity put forth by each councillor, with Cllr Miriam Murphy questioning whether all the elected members should have an equal amount of motions, adding: 'If you don't have a motion in, you don't get work done'. 'I do understand how some members feel left out, as yourself (Cllr Kennedy) and Cllr Fitzgerald have a history of motions – the highest number – and you get the highest spend,' Cllr Bourke commented. 'They are projects that I've mostly supported, because they benefited my community as well.' Breaking the tension and drawing a cacophony of laughter, Cllr Kennedy noted a point of clarity, directing Cllr Bourke's attention to the list, of which the majority of projects were attached to his motions, with Cllr Bourke jokingly responding: 'This is the first time in all my years!' Concluding the discussion, the councillors agreed to the postponement and a special meeting at the end of the month, before Cllr Kennedy cautioned: 'We're talking about changing something that works, be careful we don't break it'.
Irish Independent
2 days ago
- Irish Independent
Plans for Tipperary project aimed at addressing ‘pressing community need'
Uisce Éireann have applied to Tipperary County Council for planning permission to develop a waste water treatment plant for the village of Grangemockler in the south of the county. The application before the local authority is for a 10-year permission for the development of an Integrated Constructed Wetland (ICW) type Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) for the treatment of wastewater from the Grangemockler agglomeration comprising of one septic tank and four ICW ponds. The provision of a new terminal wastewater pumping station at the site of the existing Slievardagh Estate Developer Provided Infrastructure (DPI) WWTP, which is to be decommissioned, an access road surrounding the ICW ponds, as well as the decommissioning of two existing septic tanks at Mill River and Lingaun Park, and ancillary works associated with the development including the associated pipework and pedestrian access also forms part of the development. The project will 'allow for the future population increase in the area,' planning files state. The area is currently in need of a upgraded water treatment system, with the new system aiming to provide for future growth of the village and its surrounding areas. "There is a pressing community need for the development of a WWTP and associated infrastructure for the Grangemockler agglomeration,' Uisce Éireann added. 'The construction of the proposed Grangemockler WWTP is necessary to comply with the requirements of the national and EU regulations'. Tipperary County Council are due to make a decision on the planning application by July 22.
Irish Times
3 days ago
- Irish Times
State utility firms told Minister chief executive pay limits posed ‘serious risks' to organisations
The chairs of the boards of Gas Networks Ireland (GNI), Uisce Éireann and the Land Development Agency warned last year that restrictions on pay for their chief executives posed 'real and serious risks' to the organisations. In a note to the Senior Posts Remuneration Committee, established last year, Department of Housing secretary general Graham Doyle said the boards of GNI and Uisce Éireann had also expressed 'serious concerns ... about the potential loss of the CEO at a critical time for both companies'. According to submissions sent by the department to the Government-appointed review body said the chairs of the two utility firms' boards had written to then minister for housing Darragh O'Brien about chief executive pay. This correspondence was copied to the then minister for public expenditure Paschal Donohoe , who had established the committee in March 2024 to advise on pay scales for senior public-sector jobs. READ MORE 'Attempts to improve the remuneration level have failed', the Department of Housing said in the document. It said the chief executives of Uisce Éireann and GNI had a base salary that was fixed at €225,000 with no provision for increments or indexation. [ ESB board had 'significant concern' that €318,000 salary was not sufficient for chief executive post Opens in new window ] It said within Uisce Éireann and GNI the senior management teams were entitled to performance-related awards. However, the chief executive was excluded from such payments. 'In Uisce Éireann, there are nine employees in the same band as the CEO (€225,001 to €250,000) and two employees in the final band of €250,001 to €275,000 (ie above the level of remuneration of the CEO). Currently, there are a number of executives in Uisce Éireann whose salaries are capped based on the approved headroom. This presents difficulties for key roles and for succession planning. Two executives left Uisce Éireann over the past 12 months.' It said in GNI there were also two employees paid more than the chief executive and that two executives had left the company over the previous year. Mr Doyle said when the chairs had contacted the minister 'in each case the argument has been put forward that the current constraints which exist in respect of pay pose very real and serious risks to the work of these three vitally important commercial State bodies, which are delivering critical infrastructure on behalf of the State and its citizens while, at the same time contributing to the wider economy.' He said the chairs had set out the challenges of recruiting and retaining high-calibre candidates. 'It is noted, for example, that in some cases the remuneration has remained unchanged at levels approved in early 2017, that the posts are time bound at five or seven years with no opportunity for renewal or for reappointment to any other position within the company, that taking up the position can involve the surrendering of an existing (often permanent) contract to the time-bound contract and the loss of a performance-related award, and finally, that the amount of time it can take an individual to secure employment at the end of time-bound period can, in itself, shorten the length of the actual term served.' Last month following the report of the review group, the Government signalled it would update rules to allow a 'market rate' to be paid to chief executives in commercial State companies.
