Council sells former Wexford foodstore for double its asking price as purchaser confirms residential units plan
Wexford People
Today at 01:00
Wexford County Council (WCC) has acquired the Crossroads Foodstore at Wygram Place via the Derelict Sites Act Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO). The property is now to be sold to Seaant Holdings of Ardcavan for €205,500 who are required to 'substantially complete works on the property, so as to render it non-derelict and return it to productive use' within 24-36 months of the sale.
There will be a buy-back option of WCC should the works not be completed within the required timeframe.
Crossroads Foodstore was identified as being suitable for acquisition under the Urban Regeneration and Development Fund (URDF) programme. The intention of this programme is to have local authorities, in this instance WCC, act as the conduit for getting long-term vacant and derelict properties into the ownership of those who will return them to use.
Properties acquired by local authorities under this programme must be offered for sale on the open market so as to bring them back in to use in a timely fashion. Accordingly, WCC appointed an independent sales agent to value and manage the sale of the property on the open market. This property was valued at €100,000 and was advertised for sale through the estate agent's website.
A best and final offer of €202,500 was received on February 6 of this year. The proposed purchasers have confirmed it is their intention to turn the former Crossroads Foodstore building into residential units.
Prior to its closure in 2013, the Crossroads Foodstore had operated for 44 years in Wexford town. It had been run by the Murphy family with Erdie and Sinead behind the counter until they took the decision to close down in August, 2013 due to the former's cancer diagnosis.
In October of 2014 Erdie lost his battle with cancer with hundreds turning out in Wexford town to remember a man who ran one of the most popular shops in the area for many years.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Agriland
2 days ago
- Agriland
ICMSA: 50c/L base price ‘fully justified' for May milk
The Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers' Association (ICMSA) has said that a base price of 50c/L is 'fully justified' for May milk supplies. The chair of the association's dairy committee, Noel Murphy, made the comments ahead of milk price announcements for last month from co-ops. He said that co-op boards 'should resist any attempt for milk price reductions for May given the current conditions in the marketplace'. Noel Murphy, ICMSA Dairy Committee chair. Image: Domnick Walsh Eye Focus Murphy said that 'milk supplies globally and in particular in the EU remain constrained'. 'There is no evidence to suggest that milk supplies will increase to any great extent in the foreseeable future while demand for dairy products is strengthening in advance of the holiday period and dairy demand is looking strong in the medium term. 'The Global Dairy Trade (GDT) is higher today than it was at the start of 2025, the average milk price across the EU is at 53c/kg while the Dutch quotations have shown improvements in the order of 2c/L over the course of May,' he said. 'It would be simply unacceptable for milk processors, some of whom are conditioning farmers for a reduction, to cut milk prices to boost their own profits for 2025. 'The reality is that no one else in the milk processor supply chain will be taking or expected to take a cut,' he added. 'Co-op boards are fully justified in insisting that milk price is set at least at 50c/L for May milk and provide dairy farmers with the confidence to invest in their business and for the next generation to reconsider dairying as an attractive option for their future career. 'It is clear at this stage that dairy markets are relatively stable and dairy farmers expect at a minimum that their milk will remain stable or else move up to 50c/L if currently below that level,' Murphy said.
Irish Independent
3 days ago
- Irish Independent
Minister dampens optimism over Wexford SETU campus – ‘I'm not aware that there's money ready to go for this'
A legal challenge taken by the principal landowner against Wexford County Council's compulsory purchase of lands at Ballynagee – stretching from Whiterock to Killeens – was rejected at the High Court, clearing the way for the local authority to move forward with the purchase and plans for the establishment of a new South East Technological University (SETU) campus. However, in a questionable performance on South East Radio's Morning Mix with Alan Corcoran on Thursday morning, Minister Lawless rowed back on previous assurances given by predecessor, Tánaiste Simon Harris, regarding funding for the campus and stated that it was still a long way off becoming a reality. Initially the Minister seemed poorly briefed on the cause of the latest delay and the outcome of the latest court proceedings. 'It's good news that it was refused in court,' he said. ' A judicial review was taken. It's one challenge with building infrastructure like this, there's always someone can object. That is there right, but it's not their right to hold up society for a number of years. The process is too slow. We're trying to address that with the Planning Act. I'm not making a comment on this particular case in saying that, however.' In this instance, of course, it was not an objection but a challenge to a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) taken by landowner Mr Scott Mernagh. Additionally, the purchase had not been subject to a full judicial review. Mr Mernagh's application to take this action was refused by the High Court. The Minister then stated that 'the ball is back with Wexford County Council' who he imagines will move 'full steam ahead' with the CPO. He also spoke of a need for 're-engagement' between SETU and the Higher Education Authority (HEA). However, the most worrying aspect of Minister Lawless' interview came when the subject of funding was broached. On several occasions, Tánaiste Simon Harris gave assurances that money would be in place for the construction of a 'state-of-the-art college campus' as soon as the acquisition of the site was completed. 'The state is not in the habit of purchasing assets to leave them lying idle,' he said at the time. However, having taken over the role of Minister for Higher and Further Education from Patrick O'Donovan in January, Minister Lawless was not quite so definite. 'I don't promise money,' he said. 'My own approach has always been 'steady as she goes' . ADVERTISEMENT 'If the right proposal comes in, I'd be hopeful that the funding will be there, but I think we're putting the cart before the horse to talk about money before we even have a proposal on the table. Let's see what's proposed first and then we'll look at the money.' When host Alan Corcoran pointed to the numerous assurances given by the Tánaiste, Minister Lawless was non-committal. 'I'd have to go back and look at it,' he said. 'I'm not aware of what promises were made. I don't know if any money was ring-fenced or not. I'm not aware that there's money ready to go. That would be premature. The CPO process held things up, but the council is in a position to progress that at this stage.' When asked if this is still some way off from becoming a reality, Minister Lawless responded: 'I'll tell you straight. I've come into this department and this is a project on the list, but there's no site, no plan and no planning permission. It is probably a bit off still at this stage, being honest. SETU need to come into the HEA with a full spec plan. 'I will make this a priority and I will work with the players involved, but colleges are autonomous. The college is welcome to come to the HEA with plans and we will engage and discuss them. There'll be parts we'll agree on and parts we won't agree on. 'Let's see where this goes,' he concluded. 'I think, though, it would be premature to make promises regarding funding on a site that is not even owned yet.'
Irish Independent
4 days 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'.
