azimuth17 wrote: » The tone of Mr Kavanagh's posts suggests he is mired in a 19th century vision of manufacturing industry as all hammers, soot, shovels and dirt. Apple employ nearly 6500 in Cork in manufacturing and R&D. Genzyme, now Sanofi have invested nearly €600 million and rising in their specialised biotech plant at Old Kilmeaden Road in Waterford. Mr Kavanagh has probably never even seen it.....or the adjacent new WEST Pharma plant. Should Waterford not have competed for these industries? Throwing verbal and written stones at Waterford because you don't like a proposed boundary extension is useful to no one.
robtri wrote: » no.. what will waterford city do for the area... cause all waterford city supporters here go on about is GAA crap and saying KK have done nothing for the area, so what will they do? what amenities/services will they provide for the residents of the area strange that no one can answer this Dublin extends into numerous counties and it works quite well yet no need to change boundaries...
azimuth17 wrote: » There are so many errors written in the past few posts that I thought a couple corrections might be helpful. The Ardree Hotel is half in Waterford city and county Kilkenny , the boundary runs right through it, hence its derelict state was the responsibility of both local authorities. Waterford city council have pursued the owners to remedy the situation and the hotel has been reported as sold in recent weeks. The postal address of Dawn Meats in Grannagh was not altered for political reasons. The rule has always been that mail is directed to places using the nearest post town or city. Glenmore was always accurately addressed as Glenmore Waterford, Mullinavat Waterford, Kilmacow Waterford. This was a Post Office regulation and nothing else. I walk the Waterford Greenway regularly and the biggest eyesore is an old factory in Newrath. people over there told me it used to be Gouldings fertilisers. A lot of the response from obvious Kilkenny posters have failed to accept or are unwilling to accept that the regions that have done best are those with a strong regional city. To get that accepted in Kilkenny is a quite difficult job. The results are visible in the entire regional economy with unemployment still the highest in the land at some 10.5%
Max Powers wrote: » If you read some of the submissions, it was against people spouting the gaa rubbish kk virtually ignored the area,for one thing Waterford provides more social housing the area.if funding comes available, that and other investment will continue, Waterford has made progress on north quays and hopes to further develop jobs and development on north side of city.plans to connect better with pedestrian bridge.and also would help prevent silly attempts to undermine the city with massive oversized empty against spatial retail strategy development.the approaches to Waterford would be better maintained if controlled by Waterford,kkcoco should be ashamed the state of roads from motorway to Sally park.if it goes through, people over on north side will be able to access council facilities offices etc a stone throw away instead of mad situation of having to go to kk.the people who consider themselves from Waterford, educated in Waterford, working in Waterford will be able to vote for councillors and issues that directly affects their immediate area. So just a few things.
Max Powers wrote: » If you read some of the submissions...
robtri wrote: » this is about what best for the area... either way 19,000 in favour of keeping as is cant be ignored.. but u are right the politicians will ruin it...
Jamie2k9 wrote: » but the point is those 19,000 are irrelevant for the most part, they have done most of the job such as keeping Slieverue. 4,500 is nothing TBH and is there really a big difference to putting Co Waterford on the end of an address as that's all it is. I'm sure if there was a campaign in Waterford City to get submissions made the outcome would of easily been the other way round so how would you argue that? Chances are it won't happen because of a vote and FF won't abstain, TBH if they cleared it I couldn't see them losing seats as Kilkenny have never been heavily FG, farmers won't vote SF/LAB so all is left is IND and I don't see it either. FF are only against purely because of seat numbers, not because they actually give a s*hit about Kilkenny or Waterford.
robtri wrote: » all of KK by the looks of it but only 35 in favour
Jamie2k9 wrote: » It would impact 4,500, go figure who made those 19,000 submissions, would be good how many of those 4,500 made.
robtri wrote: » from the article... if thats true its a disgrace it has been revealed that 19,100 people who made submissions on the issue were against the boundary change while only 35 submissions were in favour.
azimuth17 wrote: » I think Robtri is approaching the issue from the wrong end. the real question to be asked is what will a boundary extension do for Waterford city?
3.5.1 Issues raised by respondents opposed to boundary change The 8 types of standard format accounted for 18,887 of the 19,131 submissions. They therefore reflect both the majority of submissions and the most prominent issues or concerns raised by those opposed to any change in the current boundary. At the same time, there was a high degree of consensus with regard to the issues raised across the form types. In summary, the main points made were: The sense of identity and belonging to County Kilkenny which would be lost in the event of a boundary extension. There are clear examples of co-operation between the two Councils and this should form the model for the future. A boundary extension would have significant negative financial implications for County Kilkenny due to loss of revenue from, for example, commercial rates and Local Property Tax. The movement of population would undermine existing Municipal District boundaries. Coordination and co-operation across the South East can be progressed through the Regional Assembly while still respecting existing boundaries and sense of identity. Changing the boundary would have a divisive effect on relations between the two counties. Kilkenny County Council has made significant investment within the Area of Interest in recent years which benefits the region as a whole. It would now lose out on a return on its investment as a result of boundary change. The investment made in Belview area was cited as an example. Boundary change could impact parish/Diocesan boundaries and the viability of sporting clubs in the area. The loss to County Kilkenny of planned population growth in the Area of Interest would have a negative impact on the revenue base to fund services and infrastructure in South Kilkenny. That Kilkenny County Council is fully competent to provide efficiently all the necessary services in the area. 21 An enhanced co-operative approach between the two Councils for the benefit of Kilkenny, Waterford and the South East could serve as an alternative to boundary change.
3.5.2 Issues raised by respondents in favour of boundary change Among the submissions in favour of a change to the existing boundary, a number of issues were frequently raised by respondents. In summary, their main points were: Kilkenny County Council has never invested properly in the area. A Boundary Extension would lead to improved planning in the Area/ there have been poor planning decision in the past. The residents would benefit from the closer proximity to the service provider. 22 The community in the Area of Interest are marginalised from the rest of the county and are politically remote. A Boundary Extension would improve the quality of service, ensure increased efficiency and greater value for money. The issue of GAA identity should not be allowed to become an issue in decision making on local authority boundaries. There are very close links between Waterford City and the area with many residents originally from the City and many working or studying in the City.
The Committee’s considerations are summarised as follows: 1. The public consultation invited by the Committee as part of its work elicited 19,131 submissions, not including those from Waterford Local Authority and Kilkenny County Councils themselves. Of these, 19,096 opposed any change in the existing boundary. The overwhelmingly singular basis upon which such opposition was based related to the potential loss of identity with Kilkenny County. 2. Notwithstanding the high level of recognition that the Committee gives to the significance of “county identity” in the cultural and social life of Irish people, the review had, due to its terms of reference, to consider all relevant matters, particularly practical issues related to the most effective administration of the functions of local government in an area that is proximate to the principal centre of population for the entire South-East region – this being formally identified at national level through its designation as one of the principal “Gateway” locations in the country. 3. In relation to delivering efficiencies through re-designation, there has already been significant reform. A focus on the most efficient means of service delivery by local government was a direct consequence of the threat to the financial stability of the state precipitated by the international financial crisis. Both local authorities in this case have demonstrated a high level of commitment to their respective communities, and it is the Committee’s view that there is very limited, if any, scope for delivery of further efficiencies in day-to-day service delivery costs through a range of reconfiguration of boundaries that it has examined. The investigation carried out by the Committee has identified a high level of collaborative engagement between authorities in the delivery of day-to-day services by each authority to its constituent populations. The dedication of the elected Councillors in each area was abundantly in evidence; they are real servants of their respective communities notwithstanding the complex boundary between them. In this regard, the fruitful consultation with those Councillors, and the extent to which each Council provided extensive amounts of the baseline information requested by the Committee (supporting their respective positions and responding to detailed questions), is greatly appreciated by the Review Committee. Notwithstanding this, it is our analysis that collaboration between the two authorities is significantly less in evidence at strategic level than it is at operational. For example, no joint Retail Strategy has been developed between the authorities, and there is no implementation plan or joint working group to deliver the jointly-adopted Planning and Land-Use Study since its initiation in 2004. 4. The Committee views the current configuration, designated at times of far lower economic activity and lesser population growth and with little or no provision for future expansion within its boundaries, as a practical hindrance to day-to-day service delivery and a real anomaly where it comes to dealing with the immediate hinterland of Waterford as the principal regional settlement. Waterford’s relative lower level of economic performance in comparison with other designated Gateways requires that it has the capacity most fundamentally to consolidate the core of the city to the greatest extent possible. This must include control over any matter that poses a threat to that consolidation. Waterford city’s success in terms of the promotion of its individual identity around the city centre in recent years is acknowledged. It requires every support to turn this initiative into economic success, through implementation of a successful Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) recently designated on the North Quays. All these regionally strategic initiatives to promote the primacy of the city are supported by Waterford’s partner local authorities in the South-East region, particularly Kilkenny.
The summary of the Committee’s recommendation to the Minister is as follows: A. The Waterford Boundary Review Committee recommends the abandonment of the existing impractical boundary designation in favour of the designation of an area to Waterford that gives it effective control of the immediate hinterland of the city that has expanded on the north bank of the Suir. This designation includes provision for the expansion of that area to cater for the forecast population and economic growth of the regional centre. B. The Committee recommends a Boundary Extension of Waterford County into Kilkenny County Council to include the area proximate to the suburban area in Ferrybank. It has chosen to recommend the designation of a new Boundary between the Authorities that will move the entire Electoral Area of Kilculliheen and those parts of the Electoral Areas of Aglish and Dunkitt contained within the Area of Interest that lie south of the of the N25 bypass to the control of Waterford Council. This revision would have the effect of retaining the entire Electoral Area of Rathpatrick to the east in county Kilkenny, thereby retaining the village of Slieverue and the port at Belview and its hinterland in that county. The Boundary as recommended follows those electoral area boundaries that follow the line of an existing stream, a minor tributary of the Suir. C. In deciding a recommendation on the extent of such re-designation the Committee recognises the extent to which Kilkenny County Council has, over successive decades, invested very significant strategic focus on this area at its southern end. Kilkenny has successfully promoted and developed Belview as the new location for the Waterford-based shipping industry. In so doing, it has followed many international precedents where the changing nature of maritime trading, and resulting re-configuration of land-side ports, has rendered historically city-oriented ports obsolete. The argument for a physical connection with the city is rendered weaker by these practicalities; the current location of Belview port is unhindered by city traffic and highly accessible from the national motorway network, making it an effectively regional facility. In addition, Kilkenny has largely preserved the green belt of agricultural-use land between the port and area of residential settlement that enhances the range of uses that can be located in the port area. Similarly, in relation to the local village settlements, the Committee accepts the advantage offered by Kilkenny that these places accrue from their individual identity. D. For practical purposes the designation of the boundary was primarily based on the 2004 Planning Land Use and Transportation Strategy (PLUTS) designation of land-use and future land-use blocks and follows Townland and natural boundaries (the stream that is a very minor tributary or run-off to the Suir) to the greatest extent possible. It is recognised that other boundaries, such as parish boundaries, will not fall so naturally on one side or the other of the recommended line, but there is a limit to what can be equitably divided. E. Kilkenny County Council will suffer a loss of Commercial Rates and Residential Property Tax income arising from this boundary change that is immediately and accurately identifiable. It will have to be compensated by Waterford County for such loss of income, such loss being discounted by the relief from the requirement to provide day-to-day services in the area in question. The Committee is conscious that such saving will not be significant due to Kilkenny Council’s requirement to maintain its compliment of service infrastructure and manpower in the south county despite the lesser population and area to be served. F. The population living within the proposed boundary extension area in County Kilkenny is estimated at about 4,500. The effect of transferring this area to Waterford is likely to be an increase of one councillor in Waterford Metropolitan District and a reduction of two councillors in the Piltown Municipal District of Kilkenny County Council. As this would result in the membership of the Municipal District dropping below the statutory minimum of six elected members, it would be necessary to reconfigure all of the Municipal Districts within County Kilkenny.
Michael Kavanagh wrote: » Manufacturing industries are in the past in this country it was as well Kilkenny didn't go down that road .
cats pyjamas wrote: » But the argument from many (both in submissions and on Boards) was all about benefiting the whole SE region and not just Waterford. This has been shown to be complete bulls**t by the attitude of posters and politicians from Waterford. It is driven by naked self interest only and nowhere more obvious than the last couple of comments about rates from the Port. KK and Wat aren't really competing with each other to get jobs - there are very few manufacturing jobs in KK for example. The 140 jobs announced by Cartoon Saloon is one example of the way Kilkenny have been looking at alternatives to manufacturing jobs which, although they bring money into the area, can have many drawbacks in the medium to long term. But neither are the 2 counties working together to bring jobs either because every politician wants to bring jobs to their own constituency. Look at Dawn Meats, physically in Kilkenny but the postal address is Waterford just so a politically connected people could say that they brought X amount of jobs to Waterford. I can actually see some benefit of Ferrybank being controlled by Waterford but a lot of people are deluded if they think Waterford coco is going to do a whole lot more than Kilkenny did. We had posters here complaining about a lack of amenities in the area but, when asked (repeatedly), they couldn't say what they wanted. There is plenty of land available in the area so why the need to take in Slieverue and Belleview? You can excuse Kilkenny people feeling aggrieved and shove your condescending remarks about Kilkenny people (and the whole SE region for that matter) because this has nothing to do with Waterford driving the regional economy. It is all about money for Waterford and Waterford alone.
