Dublin City Council cited ‘low usage' to shut €1.4m toilet -- but stopped counting users in 2023
Dublin City Council blamed 'low usage' as the reason for closing a €1.4million public toilet in the capital, but the council hasn't recorded the number of people using the toilet in over a year-and-a-half.
The announcement at the start of May that the only public toilets in the city centre would be closed was quickly reversed after backlash from city councillors and the public.
Dublin City Council (DCC) had said the toilets, installed near St Stephen's Green shopping centre in June 2020, would be removed due to 'low usage' and were used by 1,500 people per week.
However, a FOI request by Extra.ie found DCC stopped recording these figures in September 2023. Dublin City Council blamed 'low usage' as the reason for closing a €1.4million public toilet in the capital, but the council hasn't recorded the number of people using the toilet in over a year-and-a-half. Pic: Rolling News
The council stated the number of people entering the toilets was counted by security staff with 'a hand-held device similar to what you might see security staff use at nightclubs', and that data was 'sporadic and limited'.
A report given to councillors in April of this year also repeated the '1,500 person per week' statistic without informing the councillors that this was data from two years ago.
The report also noted that the 'current operator for this unit is ceasing trading' and DCC did not plan to seek a new operator.
South East Inner City councillor Claire Byrne said: 'If misleading figures in terms of usage were presented as a strong argument for shutting the toilets, I think that's really disappointing.'
A DCC spokesman said the toilets were installed as a temporary measure during Covid.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Bitter pill: EU exploits Trump anti-science climate to forge deal on medicines
The EU's sweeping new rules on the regulation of medicines has been one of the most bitterly contested pieces of legislation in recent times, with fierce lobbying by the pharma sector - particularly in Ireland - and member states divided on which to prioritise: cheaper medicines for patients, or a regulatory environment that supports indigenous European manufacturers in the face of US dominance. After two years of deadlock, 26 member states have agreed on a compromise proposal, with only Malta - which has its own small-market medicines challenge - abstaining. Ironically, it was the Trump administration's hostility to science and medicine regulators that convinced EU member states that the moment to finally agree on a new set of rules was at hand. "In the US you have a chaotic situation," says one source familiar with negotiations, "between [Health Secretary] Robert Kennedy Jr, who doesn't believe in science or vaccines, and the Trump administration, which has sacked three and a half thousand people from the Food and Drugs Administration. "There was a sense in Europe that we should try to get this proposal settled so that we have a stable system in Europe when there's instability elsewhere." The legislation will now go to the European Parliament, where negotiations between MEPs, the member states and the European Commission, begin on 17 June. There are hopes that the entire package could be adopted by the end of the year. The European Commission first proposed overhauling the EU's medicines regime in April 2023, as Europe was emerging from the Covid pandemic. The EU was reeling from the strain the emergency put on health systems and on the availability of certain kinds of medicines, with a deepening awareness that Europe was overly dependent on China and India for drugs such as antibiotics. At the same time, digitalisation and the availability of clinical data were opening up new possibilities in how medicines are developed and used. Despite that, innovative therapies were not reaching patients across Europe at the same speed while in some member states patients did not have access to medicines they needed due to shortages. The instinct to reduce health spending further has been given fresh impetus by the expected surge in EU defence expenditure following Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Overall, the pharma package sought to boost the competitiveness of the sector, reduce the administrative burden - and the over-reliance on India and China - and to tackle the environmental impact of drug manufacture and use. The central, most divisive issue was around the protection that big European pharma countries would have in holding on to clinical data before generic manufacturers - who could produce cheaper drugs - could access it. It became a straightforward contest between the competing interests of big pharma, which argued that companies needed the protection in order to invest more in life-saving domestic European research and innovation, and those countries which were more interested in lowering the cost of medicines and making those medicines more accessible to patients. The legislation was always going to face a stormy passage. "The difficulty was that the countries that didn't have pharmaceutical industries were very much opposing the regulatory data protection (RDP) element because all they were interested in was making medicines available to citizens," says Fianna Fáil MEP Billy Kelleher, a substitute member of the European Parliament health committee. "Eastern European countries like Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and others would have been very, very reluctant to support the strong protection of regulatory data, while it was the old West, countries like Ireland, Belgium, Italy, Germany and the Netherlands that have big manufacturing and pharma centres, a lot of research and development, who were pushing for it." The new rules would attempt to reconcile the issue of regulatory data protection, which theoretically encourages pharmaceutical companies to invest more in life-saving medicines, with the need to make drugs more affordable. Under existing EU rules, pharma companies were entitled to keep clinical data for eight years - the so-called regulatory data protection (RDP) before they were obliged to make it accessible. After the eight years was up, generic producers could file an application to use the data, at which point the patent holder enjoyed a further two - and sometimes three - extra years of protection. Under the commission's 2023 proposal, there would be a two-year reduction in the baseline RDP to six years, with an extra two years of protection. However, pharma companies could claw back a further two years of protection - extending RDP to ten years. The ten-year protection period would be available if the patent holder won approval for significant new innovations (one extra year of protection), if the product addressed an "unmet medical need", ie, where there was product authorised in the EU for a particular disease, or where the disease was associated with a high death-rate (such a situation would merit an extra six months of market protection), or if the manufacturer conducted clinical trials or extended access to all member states (another six months). Essentially, the commission was attempting to balance the need to reward medicines that meet the greatest clinical need, while speeding up access to generic producers who will make drugs that are cheaper. However, the new rules were facing hostility from traditional pharma manufacturing countries such as Germany, France, Denmark and the Netherlands, who argued that a shorter clinical data protection period would stymie research. The Irish Times reported on a full scale lobbying effort by industry, including a claim in a letter to Tánaiste Simon Harris by the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA) that the proposal could lead to a 22% drop in new medicines being developed over the coming decade. It is understood there were tensions between the IDA and Enterprise Ireland, who shared the concerns of industry, and the Department of Health, which was more concerned with lowering the cost of medicines and making them more accessible. A number of sources have said that while member states with important pharma sectors went public two years ago, when the commission first proposed reducing clinical data protection from eight years to six, in demanding the status quo of eight years, Ireland remained on the fence, and did so right up until a key meeting of EU ambassadors on 21 May. On that date, Ireland joined a blocking majority of ten countries - including Belgium, Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany - to oppose the latest Polish proposal that would have essentially increased the RDP by one year to seven, but short of eight. As a result of that blocking minority, the Poles came back with another compromise text, which is - to all intents and purposes - a return to eight years, with various caveats and conditions designed to make medicines cheaper and more accessible (one part of the text aims to ensure that medicinal products are available in all member states and provides for regulatory action if the marketing authorisation holder does not comply). Officials say the text provides more reassurance for generic producers, and will cut timelines for authorised medicines to get to market. There are other measures, including making it easier to have multi-country and multilingual medicine packs, which should reduce production costs and make it easier to move medicines around Europe. At yesterday morning's meeting of EU ambassadors, the new text received overwhelming support. The IPHA are understood to be broadly satisfied with the compromise. In a statement, the organisation said it "believes the [member states] position represents a more balanced approach than had originally been proposed by the Commission. "As the legislative process enters the final phase, EU decision makers must continue to find solutions that will keep Europe competitive through a predictable and globally competitive environment for research, development and manufacturing, while ensuring fairer access to innovative medicines for patients across the EU." Support is not uniform. The chief executive of the Confederation of Danish Industry Lars Sandahl Sørensen accused member states of triggering a potential flight of European industry to Trump's America. "We are de facto making the EU's pharmaceutical industry less competitive and thus European society vulnerable," he said. The European pharma lobby group EFPIA described yesterday's position by member states as "a missed opportunity to position Europe's life sciences sector at the forefront of global competition". In a statement, EFPIA said: "The choice to reduce intellectual property protections for pharmaceutical companies makes Europe less attractive, discouraging investment and jeopardising the development of innovative treatments in Europe without addressing the underlying barriers and delays to patient access." There is some scepticism over the industry's seeming exploitation of Donald Trump's persistence in threatening tariffs on European pharmaceutical exports and reshoring manufacturing to the US. In April the industry wrote to commission president Ursula von der Leyen, suggesting that €50.6 billion in capital investment and €52.6bn in research and development expenditure were at risk if the EU continued to over-regulate the pharma sector. "Unless Europe delivers rapid, radical policy change then pharmaceutical research, development and manufacturing is increasingly likely to be directed towards the US," EFPIA warned. Officials suggest the upcoming Critical Medicines Act (CMA) will further boost access to cheaper medicines. Drugs such as those for diabetes or HRT have been susceptible to disruption and shortages in recent years because they are often generic and produced outside the EU. The CMA will aim to encourage more manufacturing of such drugs in Europe. The action now moves to the European Parliament, where so-called trilogues - three way negotiations between member states, the Commission and MEPs - will further shape the legislation. Last year the parliament adopted its own position, calling for an RDP of seven and a half years with the possibility of some extensions. The parliament has since moved to the right, following last year's elections, so it remains to be seen if further battles are expected.
RTÉ News
16 hours ago
- RTÉ News
What a shortage of planners in Ireland means for where you live
Analysis: Planners work to manage growth and guide it towards outcomes to benefit both communities and the environment Most people don't realise how much of their daily environment, including parks, housing, transport and flood defences depends on urban planners and designers. And right now, Ireland is facing a chronic shortage of both, especially in local authorities. Good planning isn't just reactive; it's proactive and people-focused. It's about how towns and cities can become more liveable, equitable and resilient in the face of growing social and environmental pressures. At its best, planning coordinates land use with transport, housing, biodiversity, and climate resilience. In this way, planners work not only to manage growth but to guide it toward outcomes that benefit both communities and the environment. From RTÉ Radio 1's Morning Ireland, Sinn Fein housing spokesman, Eoin O'Broin discusses his parliamentary question about the numbers of extra planning staff hired over the last two years by local authorities We hear the term used a lot on the radio and in the news but what do planners actually do on a day to day basis? Generally, planning has two functions, development management and forward planning. Development management is where the vast majority of planners work in Ireland. When you apply for a house extension or a new office building or to change the façade of a supermarket, the planning team in a local authority assess the development, look at policy and make a decision to allow you to build it or not. The second area that planners work on is called forward planning, this is making plans for our future. Each local authority in Ireland reviews national policy, makes a development plan aligned to this for their area and develops detailed plans for a particular town, street or area called masterplans, LAPS (local area plans), SDZs (strategic development zones) or UDZs (urban development zones). That mission is becoming increasingly urgent. As Ireland's population grows (projected to reach over six million by 2051), pressure is mounting to deliver compact, well-connected, low-carbon development in existing urban areas. Meanwhile, the effects of climate change — from flooding and sea level rise to extreme heat and water stress — demand that we radically rethink how we design settlements, locate infrastructure and manage land use. From RTÉ Radio 1's Today with Claire Byrne, do we need to reform the planning system? Now here is the interesting part, in recent years we are now seeing much more emphasis on making or remaking new areas in towns and cities. This requires urban designers who think about what kind of place this will be. Are there transport links? How do we deal with rainfall in climate change events? What kind of population density is the correct one? Ireland's shortage of planners is well documented. Many councils are unable to fill key posts in forward planning and development management, often losing staff to the private sector or to jurisdictions abroad that offer better pay and working conditions. We're seeing more or less the same numbers of planners, urban designers and related professionals graduating from third-level as was the case in the past, but the two main areas of planning have substantially grown in recent years and will continue to grow. This means we are slowly running out of planners to fill those positions, which is bad news for everyone. Without highly skilled trained planners and urban designers, we leave plan making to the market, and this is not a balanced view. Under a development plan, a site usually has a very broad zoning with lots of potential uses, particularly in urban centres. The better way to do things is to carefully make plans for our cities and towns, imagining what they look and feel like as places. For instance we could think of a new urban district which has a square as its heart surrounded by hotels, cinemas, bars and restaurants that is the centre of a mixed use community. If we plan this way and work out what we want that to look like, from building heights to pedestrianised streets we can extrapolate the areas, programmes and heights of each urban block and even of what each building should be. This way of doing things isn't new and it is how the best cities in the world think. This is the planning system we all want. Planners want it as it creates great places and developers and investors want it as it creates certainty, but it requires one much needed asset, and that is the time of skilled people who are trained to think about how to make future plans. This is something we are incredibly short on. What we need in Ireland now is a new generation of well trained, urban designers who can think about public space, beautiful buildings, a climate changing world, economics and density parameters in a holistic way to shape our towns and villages. We hear many stories about the shortage of housing and it has become a discussion on numbers, much like a commodity. But if we only build numbers, what kind of society are we designing? We need a balanced approach where the placemaking is as important as the numbers so we have a society that functions well into the long term.
The Journal
17 hours ago
- The Journal
Australian woman accused of murdering in-laws added mushrooms because dish was 'a little bland'
THE AUSTRALIAN WOMAN accused of murdering three people by lacing their lunch with toxic mushrooms told a court today she may have unwittingly used 'foraged' fungi in the dish. Erin Patterson is charged with murdering her estranged husband's parents and aunt in 2023 by spiking their beef Wellington lunch with lethal death cap mushrooms. She is also accused of attempting to murder a fourth guest – her husband's uncle – who survived after a long stay in hospital. Patterson maintains the lunch was poisoned by accident, pleading not guilty to all charges in a case that continues to grip Australia. The 50-year-old choked up with emotion as she gave her account of the meal today. She said she decided to improve the beef-and-pastry dish with dried mushrooms after deciding it tasted a 'little bland'. While she initially believed a kitchen container held store-bought mushrooms, she said it may have been mixed with foraged fungi. 'I decided to put in the dried mushrooms I brought from the grocer,' she told the court. 'Now I think that there was a possibility that there were foraged ones in there as well.' She also told the court that she had misled her guests about the purpose of the family meal. While they ate, Patterson revealed she might be receiving treatment for cancer in the coming weeks. But this was a lie, Patterson said on Wednesday. 'Shouldn't have lied' 'I was planning to have gastric bypass surgery, so I remember thinking I didn't want to tell anybody what I was going to have done. 'I was really embarrassed about it. Advertisement 'So letting them believe I had some serious issue that needed treatment might mean they could help me with the logistics around the kids,' she told the court. 'I shouldn't have lied to them,' she added. The prosecution alleges Patterson deliberately poisoned her lunch guests and took care that she did not consume the deadly mushrooms herself. Her defence says Patterson ate the same meal as the others but did not fall as sick. Patterson asked her estranged husband Simon to the family lunch at her secluded rural Victoria home in July 2023. Simon turned down the invitation because he felt too uncomfortable, the court has heard previously. The pair were long estranged but still legally married. Simon's parents Don and Gail were happy to attend, dying days after eating the home-cooked meal. Simon's aunt Heather Wilkinson also died, while her husband Ian fell seriously ill but later recovered. Patterson earlier told the court how she had started foraging for mushrooms during a Covid lockdown in 2020, using a dehydrator to preserve them. Husband Simon asked her if she had 'poisoned' his parents using the appliance, Patterson told the court on Wednesday. 'I said of course not,' Patterson said. Police later found the dehydrator at a nearby rubbish dump. The trial is expected to last another week. - © AFP 2025
