Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Septic tank charges

Options
1…910121415…35

Comments

  • Options
    #332
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Tipp Man wrote: »
    I am paying to have a known polluter inspect my tank which "Potentially" might be polluting

    That is hypocrisy of the highest order if ever i have heard it and is typical of this state - like the state bodies are somehow above the law

    The council's authority to inspect your septic tank is not based on their moral authority and stainless moral character.
    Tipp Man wrote: »
    The volume of pollution created by the Coco is many times, maybe even hundreds of times higher than individual septic tanks

    Than individual septic tanks, sure. But there are half a million septic tanks in the country, and they're much wider spread. And it's still not an either/or.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    You know well that he meant those half a million combined.

    Given that it's not an either/or, I presume you will have no objection to being charged for inspection of your sewerage pipe - with no reduction in any other taxes, commercial or otherwise, and that you agree this should be done ASAP ?


  • Options
    #333
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,122 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    You know well that he meant those half a million combined.

    Really? half a million tanks = at least 1 million people's worth of poo.

    I'm not aware that councils are dumping (no pun intended, etc) a million poos a day into rivers.

    edit: your second para
    Given that it's not an either/or, I presume you will have no objection to being charged for inspection of your sewerage pipe - with no reduction in any other taxes, commercial or otherwise, and that you agree this should be done ASAP ?

    €50 isn't going to pay the real cost of a septic tank inspection. Even in this, you're being subsidised... and yet you complain.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #334
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    You know well that he meant those half a million combined.

    Really? half a million tanks = at least 1 million people's worth of poo.

    I'm not aware that councils are dumping (no pun intended, etc) a million poos a day into rivers.

    edit: your second para
    Given that it's not an either/or, I presume you will have no objection to being charged for inspection of your sewerage pipe - with no reduction in any other taxes, commercial or otherwise, and that you agree this should be done ASAP ?

    €50 isn't going to pay the real cost of a septic tank inspection. Even in this, you're being subsidised... and yet you complain.

    You seem to thInk that no septic tank in the country is working going by your 1 million people remark

    Fact would suggest the vast majority are working, fact also tells us that coco putting untreated sewage into rivers throughout the country is a far bigger polluter


  • Options
    #335
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    The council's authority to inspect your septic tank is not based on their moral authority and stainless moral character.

    Are we living in a communist dictatorship or something, do as I say not as I do? 1 law for them or a different law for the peasants
    Tipp Man wrote: »
    The volume of pollution created by the Coco is many times, maybe even hundreds of times higher than individual septic tanks

    Than individual septic tanks, sure. But there are half a million septic tanks in the country, and they're much wider spread. And it's still not an either/or.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw[/Quote]


    The majority of those tanks are fhunctioning properly and the fact that they are spread over the whole country means significant pollution in 1 area is much less likely and much much less damaging than a council putting a large volume of sewage out in 1 spot. It is way more concentrated and therefore way more damaging


  • Options
    #336
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    I have no doubt that there are grossly polluting tanks but I have shown examples of grossly polluting public schemes like the collective septic tank in Ballymore Eustace.

    What is unfair is that individual households are being singled out merely because they self provisioned, generally after a local authority gave them planning permission while households that pollute grossly have to pay nothing by virtue of their being on public schemes like Ballymore Eustace.

    What is farcical is that the gross polluters, ie Local Authorities, are judge and jury over these single households.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #337
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    ninja900 wrote: »
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    You know well that he meant those half a million combined.

    Really? half a million tanks = at least 1 million people's worth of poo.

    I'm not aware that councils are dumping (no pun intended, etc) a million poos a day into rivers.

    Well there are 4.5 million people in the country, so if you're going to pretend that all of the septic tanks are 100% faulty then I'm going to use your approach and pretend that all sewage systems are faulty; guess who's going to have egg on their in that contrived and inaccurate scenario ?
    Given that it's not an either/or, I presume you will have no objection to being charged for inspection of your sewerage pipe - with no reduction in any other taxes, commercial or otherwise, and that you agree this should be done ASAP ?

    €50 isn't going to pay the real cost of a septic tank inspection. Even in this, you're being subsidised... and yet you complain.

    €50 is a registration fee. And nice attempt at distraction from the point - that similar inspections are required for sewerage systems.......will all you urban-dwellers be accepting your new equivalent charge without "whinging" ?


  • Options
    #338
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Are we living in a communist dictatorship or something, do as I say not as I do? 1 law for them or a different law for the peasants

    Er, no. I'm not sure who you think would be the "them" here - the council, where it has septic tanks, will need to have these registered.

    There is, however, one law for septic tanks and another for sewage outflows.
    Tipp Man wrote: »
    The majority of those tanks are fhunctioning properly and the fact that they are spread over the whole country means significant pollution in 1 area is much less likely and much much less damaging than a council putting a large volume of sewage out in 1 spot. It is way more concentrated and therefore way more damaging

    I agree with you that the council should clean up their sewage outflows, but it doesn't change the fact that septic tanks need to be inspected.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #339
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,122 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    Well there are 4.5 million people in the country, so if you're going to pretend that all of the septic tanks are 100% faulty

    They're not, but we can't know how many are until inspections are done.

    €50 is a registration fee. And nice attempt at distraction from the point - that similar inspections are required for sewerage systems.......will all you urban-dwellers be accepting your new equivalent charge without "whinging" ?

    The usual suspects will oppose (Comrade Joe Higgins and co) but water and sewerage charges in urban areas are inevitable (Whether combined into one charge, or not.)
    I doubt there'll be the sort of childish hysteria we've seen from the septic tank protestors though.

    It's long past time that all householders paid their fair share - yes that includes septic tank inspections, as well as public water supply and sewerage charges. Currently local authorities are having to put an excessive burden on businesses which is bad for jobs and pushes up prices. Rates should never have been abolished without being replaced with some equivalent system of charges on households.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #340
    bandra8126
    Registered Users Posts: 8 ✭bandra8126


    Ardmacha - it's because of people like you that the country is in the state it's in - what are we going to pay a 'service charge' for , when all of the services will be charged for seperately i.e water , bin charges ,septic tank charge not to mention the countless costs involved in providing our children with education - and then they also throw in a 'service charge' on top of this ! Sorry if i'm 'bleating' - but maybe a bit more 'bleating' would turn things around - we are the laughing stock of europe - if we all stood up like the greek people do we might get somewhere !


  • Options
    #341
    Head The Wall
    Registered Users Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Looks like the Greeks are going downhill to me, what exactly is all this strikeing achieving for them?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #342
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    bandra8126 wrote: »
    ...if we all stood up like the greek people do we might get somewhere !
    The Greek people are rioting against the bailout; in other words, they're demanding a disorderly default. When they get their wishes, and the government literally doesn't have any money to pay public service wages and social welfare recipients, what's the rioters' plan to deal with that?

    It's all very well protesting against things, but protest doesn't solve problems. Protesting against septic tank registration charges isn't going to fix broken septic tanks.

    I'm getting very tired of the constant lauding of rowdy protest, and the concomitant bitching about people who won't do it. When the Greek rioters come up with some concrete proposals to close the structural gap in their public finances, feel free to hold them up as role models.


  • Options
    #343
    Tipp Man
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    Scofflaw wrote: »

    I agree with you that the council should clean up their sewage outflows, but it doesn't change the fact that septic tanks need to be inspected.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Perhaps I have missed it but have the councils announced that all of the public sewage they are responsible for will now be treated and not simply dumped in rivers?

    Where are the funds to build these new sewage works for the councils going to come from??


  • Options
    #344
    Mr.Micro
    Registered Users Posts: 5,336 ✭✭✭Mr.Micro


    Head The Wall wrote: »
    Looks like the Greeks are going downhill to me, what exactly is all this strikeing achieving for them?

    Like many in Ireland, refuse to take any of the blame for all the things that were done wrong, and then refuse the medicine that may fix it in the long term. Here, a massive fuss over paying a household charge, and septic tank charge. Are we in a position to revolt over everything, or strike like the Greeks when their country is down the pan? Timing or what? It will only serve to escalate the further destruction of their economy. We need to get on with it here and instead of getting all in a twist about new levies. Septic tank regulation is no bad thing and well overdue IMO. As I posted last night though, Coco s need to be brought in line to deliver for the future re cost, expertise and accountability.


  • Options
    #345
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Scofflaw wrote: »
    I agree with you that the council should clean up their sewage outflows, but it doesn't change the fact that septic tanks need to be inspected.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Perhaps I have missed it but have the councils announced that all of the public sewage they are responsible for will now be treated and not simply dumped in rivers?

    Where are the funds to build these new sewage works for the councils going to come from??
    Could you do me a favour and explain the thought processes by which you decided that that was a meaningful response to Scofflaw's point? Because it looks to me like you replied to something completely different that someone else wrote, but quoted Scofflaw by accident.

    Or is logical argument a completely lost art in the Internet age?


  • Options
    #346
    Max Powers
    Registered Users Posts: 3,510 ✭✭✭Max Powers


    has any proper information being put out yet on a web-page relating to the septic tank charge. eg...is it a once off payment?


  • Options
    #347
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Tipp Man wrote: »
    Perhaps I have missed it but have the councils announced that all of the public sewage they are responsible for will now be treated and not simply dumped in rivers?

    Where are the funds to build these new sewage works for the councils going to come from??

    They have to, the Water Framework Directive commits them to it.

    the Water Framework Directive is a European Union directive which commits European Union member states to achieve good qualitative and quantitative status of all water bodies (including marine waters up to one nautical mile from shore) by 2015. It is a framework in the sense that it prescribes steps to reach the common goal rather than adopting the more traditional limit value approach.

    The directive defines 'surface water status' as the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status. Thus, to achieve 'good surface water status' both the ecological status and the chemical status of a surface water body need to be at least 'good'. Ecological status refers to the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems of the surface waters. Water is an important facet of all life and the water framework directive sets standards which ensure the safe access of this resource.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_Framework_Directive


  • Options
    #348
    ednwireland
    Registered Users Posts: 14,315 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    Max Powers wrote: »
    has any proper information being put out yet on a web-page relating to the septic tank charge. eg...is it a once off payment?

    its not envisaged as such no (although once every place is registered ? why more fees)
    Following the initial registration, householders will not be required to re-register their systems for several years – an interval of 5 years is envisaged between each registration; (No clarification is given on payment of re-registration fees)

    http://www.moneyguideireland.com/septic-tank-registration-charges.html

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • Options
    #349
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    but anyone who registers in the first 3 months will only have to pay €5.

    Fairly disgusting U-turn by Hogan in my view but at least it might keep the moaners happy.
    although once every place is registered ? why more fees

    I assume to pay for the cost of running the system.


  • Options
    #350
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    Has there been any indication that if work is required that making a planning application would be waved?


  • Options
    #351
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Bullseye1 wrote: »
    Has there been any indication that if work is required that making a planning application would be waved?
    I can't imagine why planning would be required, unless the remedial work required was so extensive that it meant a whole new percolation area in a different field, or something.

    Even if you had to dig out and old tank and put in a new one, why would that require planning?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #352
    Sponge Bob
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Even if you had to dig out and old tank and put in a new one, why would that require planning?

    Has Hogan guaranteed it doesn't and provided supporting statutory linkage??

    I strongly suspect every septic tank needs planning permission, including replacement tanks. But I am not sure.


  • Options
    #353
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    Poor standards in waste water treatment - EPA
    Almost half of waste water treatment plants in Ireland do not meet national or EU standards.

    Should be interesting to see how the government intend tackling this issue.


  • Options
    #354
    ednwireland
    Registered Users Posts: 14,315 ✭✭✭✭ednwireland


    MadsL wrote: »
    I assume to pay for the cost of running the system.

    errm i assume that if your tested you will pay a testing fee ? the registration fee is just that, a registration fee (and honestly i think the reason people are up in arms about this because no-one seems to have thought through this process, once your registered, how often are you testing how long does the registration last , how long have you to fix up a dodgy septic, what standards are you testing to - the one when the planning was approved ?

    honestly its a typical gov / civil service cock-up

    My weather

    https://www.ecowitt.net/home/share?authorize=96CT1F



  • Options
    #355
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Poor standards in waste water treatment - EPA



    Should be interesting to see how the government intend tackling this issue.

    I'm sure the need for extra funding (via taxation or levy) from households to cover the costs will be as vigorously defended here as was the need for spectic tanks owners to fund their inspections.. ;)


  • Options
    #356
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    Poor standards in waste water treatment - EPA

    I just downloaded the full report from the EPA website, should make interesting reading.

    After a (very) quick look I can't see anything on septic tanks (probably don't recognize any reports as being about them). Does anybody know of a link so that we can get some comparative data (there should at least be some about Cavan).


  • Options
    #357
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I can't imagine why planning would be required, unless the remedial work required was so extensive that it meant a whole new percolation area in a different field, or something.

    Even if you had to dig out and old tank and put in a new one, why would that require planning?

    I have dealt with a couple of Planning Authorities regarding upgrading existing waste water treatment systems and both have required planning applications.

    This was an upgrade from an existing septic tank and soak hole to a more modern system. Since we do not know IF after carrying out an inspection it is concluded that a new system is required then the question of planning might occur.


  • Options
    #358
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,466 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    I can't imagine why planning would be required, unless the remedial work required was so extensive that it meant a whole new percolation area in a different field, or something.

    Even if you had to dig out and old tank and put in a new one, why would that require planning?

    From my experience with failing septic tanks, the repair jobs that actually require extensive works are those where the percolation drain has failed independent of the tank itself. In such cases a relocation of the percolation drain field is usually necessary (unless you want far more significant costs associated with the repairs).


  • Options
    #359
    murphaph
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Welease wrote: »
    I'm sure the need for extra funding (via taxation or levy) from households to cover the costs will be as vigorously defended here as was the need for spectic tanks owners to fund their inspections.. ;)
    I've said it before....I'd be quite happy for all cities to pay for their own infrastructure and upkeep, so long as they weren't also expected to cross subsidise rural areas, which is what currently happens.

    Local services like (non-national) roads, water, sewage, waste collection, schools, libraries and so on should be funded locally. More local taxpayers = improved services.


  • Options
    #360
    Welease
    Registered Users Posts: 3,834 ✭✭✭Welease


    murphaph wrote: »
    I've said it before....I'd be quite happy for all cities to pay for their own infrastructure and upkeep, so long as they weren't also expected to cross subsidise rural areas, which is what currently happens.

    Local services like (non-national) roads, water, sewage, waste collection, schools, libraries and so on should be funded locally. More local taxpayers = improved services.

    Would that ever really be possible though? and probably even more difficult to retrofit given our current layout..

    Years of lax planning with regards to dwellings and infrastrucure have left us with houses sprawled everywhere which is an issue, but we also have central services like IDA etc. which would focus on attracting business to specific areas more than others..

    If not managed properly, then the usual Irish solution would be for each county to screw other counties to attract business.. Kildare cuts business rates to 0 and provides cheaper sq ft space than Dublin to get companies to relocate etc etc etc.. How does Dublin continue to pay for it's services? and is taxation based on where you live and consume services, or where you work and get paid...

    I think as with most things the solution is probably somewhere in the middle.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #361
    oscarBravo
    Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 28,792 Mod ✭✭✭✭oscarBravo


    Welease wrote: »
    I think as with most things the solution is probably somewhere in the middle.
    Yup. In Denmark, for example, every local authority levies its own income taxes on top of the national tax in order to pay for local services - but the richer local authorities still subsidise the poorer ones.


Advertisement