Boundary Extension for City?

Yeah I have this vision of Waterford in the year 2100 having failed repeatedly to expand northwards, population 150,000 with suburbs and commuter routes filling the land out to Tramore Kilmeaden and Woodstown. But they're still farming above in Kilculliheen Ballyrobin and Newrath! From listening to some of the vox-pops for a lot of people it's a fear of their rural way of life being swamped by urbanisation. I get it but I'm sure some country people in places like Ballygunner and Butlerstown were fearful about the city spreading out to engulf their parishes when previous boundary extensions occurred. But we didn't hear the hysteria and lies which the current situation has given rise to.

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Yeah I have this vision of Waterford in the year 2100 having failed repeatedly to expand northwards, population 150,000 with suburbs and commuter routes filling the land out to Tramore Kilmeaden and Woodstown. But they're still farming above in Kilculliheen Ballyrobin and Newrath! From listening to some of the vox-pops for a lot of people it's a fear of their rural way of life being swamped by urbanisation. I get it but I'm sure some country people in places like Ballygunner and Butlerstown were fearful about the city spreading out to engulf their parishes when previous boundary extensions occurred. But we didn't hear the hysteria and lies which the current situation has given rise to.

There are sound geographical reasons for the relative lack of housing on the Ferrybank side. Firstly, having only one bridge has always been an impediment to development. Secondly, immediately opposite the Quay is a cliff for the most part - hardly conducive to housing! No doubt Waterford has developed far more in certain directions than others. However, the imbalance is not just on the Ferrybank side. You reach open country very quickly on the Bilberry and Gracedieu road sides also. By the 90's, significant development had commenced in Ferrybank and would have continued but for the economic crash(and will continue in the future). There was as much building in Ferrybank(outside Waterford) in the 10 years before the crash as any suburb within the City.

I, and others have asked repeatedly how moving the boundary will make a real difference to the development of the City or improve the lives of people in the affected area(admittedly these points are linked, at least partly). I still haven't received any proper answer to this. I've said before that the big questions for Waterford's development are the hospital, the college/university and more foreign investment. I'm sure that everyone will agree that these are important issues, though some might add more. I fail to see how these issues will be affected by houses being built in Newrath instead of Logloss.

You're all saying how obvious it is that the extension is a no-brainer and should have been done years ago. Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Squidvicious wrote: »

You're all saying how obvious it is that the extension is a no-brainer and should have been done years ago. Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Amalgamating Kilkenny and Waterford Councils is more of a no-brainer, if we're being honest. There doesn't seem to be the appetite for that though.

Squidvicious wrote: »

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I think the likelihood is that the population over there will be 20000 or more in the next twenty years or so. The most recent changes to the LAP that Kilkenny made for the area has removed the name Waterford  from its header. They now call it Ferrybank Belview LAP in a pretense that it is not holistically part of Waterford. They want to ignore the 800lb gorilla and pretend it is a  physically seperate town in itself  like Thomastown but this will backfire badly on them. Already it is the second largest town in the county. In twenty years you might have a situation where the "Ferrybank-Belview" urban area could be approaching a population nearing what Kilkenny is now. Think about that for a minute. The recorded population for Kilkenny City at the moment is not the urban population. It includes some large rural districts comparable let's say to the rural areas in the "metropolitan" district of Waterford between Waterford Tramore and Dunnmore East. It is not unthinkable that it could eclipse the population of Kilkenny City or come within a shout. 
There is a precedent for this happening. Tramore and Dungarvan. The largest town in Waterford is Tramore and not Dungarvan any more.
 Tramore and the Dunmore Road have been the main areas of growth in Waterford. Both areas expanded massively between 1986 and 2006. There must be a population increase of 20000 approx between both areas. I had an off the cuff conversation with a City Council workers who told me  that once the expectation was the future development would orient from the city toward Tramore. What happened was it went towards Dunmore instead. The overspill from Waterford went to Tramore . Whatever happens the cat is out of the bag for Kilkenny (no pun intended). There is a political problem over there on the horizon. And the only cure for it is a boundary extension.

Fantastic! Think of all the extra hurlers that could mean for us:D:D

Doubt it. The majority of people in the area we're talking about consider themselves Waterford.

Squidvicious wrote: »

Dunmoreroader wrote: »

Yeah I have this vision of Waterford in the year 2100 having failed repeatedly to expand northwards, population 150,000 with suburbs and commuter routes filling the land out to Tramore Kilmeaden and Woodstown. But they're still farming above in Kilculliheen Ballyrobin and Newrath! From listening to some of the vox-pops for a lot of people it's a fear of their rural way of life being swamped by urbanisation. I get it but I'm sure some country people in places like Ballygunner and Butlerstown were fearful about the city spreading out to engulf their parishes when previous boundary extensions occurred. But we didn't hear the hysteria and lies which the current situation has given rise to.

There are sound geographical reasons for the relative lack of housing on the Ferrybank side. Firstly, having only one bridge has always been an impediment to development. Secondly, immediately opposite the Quay is a cliff for the most part - hardly conducive to housing! No doubt Waterford has developed far more in certain directions than others. However, the imbalance is not just on the Ferrybank side. You reach open country very quickly on the Bilberry and Gracedieu road sides also. By the 90's, significant development had commenced in Ferrybank and would have continued but for the economic crash(and will continue in the future). There was as much building in Ferrybank(outside Waterford) in the 10 years before the crash as any suburb within the City.

I, and others have asked repeatedly how moving the boundary will make a real difference to the development of the City or improve the lives of people in the affected area(admittedly these points are linked, at least partly). I still haven't received any proper answer to this. I've said before that the big questions for Waterford's development are the hospital, the college/university and more foreign investment. I'm sure that everyone will agree that these are important issues, though some might add more. I fail to see how these issues will be affected by houses being built in Newrath instead of Logloss.

You're all saying how obvious it is that the extension is a no-brainer and should have been done years ago. Repeating something doesn't make it true.

Now listen very very very carefully  so you won't have to embarrass yourself  by  make foolish statements like this one

"I, and others have asked repeatedly how moving the boundary will make a real difference to the development of the City or improve the lives of people in the affected area"

You have told repeatedly the reasons here or else you've lost the plot. Or else you are just bulsh!tting There are fifty pages of posts and the issues have been discussed. The issues are the basic neglect of the area. There are residential areas emerging there for years the oldest being abbey park and there are barely footpaths there even now.

The Ferrybank Shopping Centre is a textbook case of  bad planning. It is living proof that despite all the talk  of "co-operation" KK has no intention of doing so. The LAP for the area has so many contradictions it is  virtually unworkable. The whole aim of the LAP retail strategy is to maximize rates and deny Waterford access to its hinterland. This has been discussed here before! Where were you?

The smaller and more suitable neighborhood center near Abbey Park was more than enough. Even that is unoccupied since 2008. Not only did they try to sabotage Waterford but they also did so to Kilkenny residents with businesses in Ferrybank. I doubt Bobby Aylward brought this up in the Rhu Glenn. Contrast this with the Dunmore road and the town centre development near Ardkeen.

Your assessment of the cliffs behind the train station as an obstacle is BS. Similar topography in Billberry has not stopped housing being constructed. Major housing and mixed use development was planned for the Ard Ri. You also seem to be blissfully unaware that housing development also needs natural  amenities and access to public Transport.  

I don't know what logic you are using regarding the bridge or Logloss or if you even know the area outside of looking at a map. Either way you have inadvertently shown why the extension is needed These areas are also predicted to have strong growth and have already experienced it. The only places left to go is Ferrybank area and Logloss! The later is probably at a more advanced staged than Ferrybak/Belview.  You seem to be under the impression that Waterford has to exhaust all land  before an extension is justified? This is not how towns and cities are planned. Along with housing, allowances have to be made for industry and other land uses. There are two areas. Logloss/Carriclpherish and Ferrybank/Belview. It is not either/or it is both areas need to be developed in Tandem.  

The Bridge? Why do you think this inhibits housing development in Ferrybank? On the contrary development north of the river is needed to relieve congestion on the bridge. The industrial zone near Belview is a major source and destination of traffic. This is going to get worse. There is also a provision for a second bridge downstream in the land use strategy to connect the area. There is no reason to think this is not achievable.  

As for your Hospital and University comments. Nice Try! But this is a mere deflection. These are highly important. But they are no less important issue in this country is proper planning.You seemed to have missed the banking inquiry! Sh!tty planning like Ferrybank SC is why we are stuck with dodgy entities like NAMA.  I heard a few of the residents of Slieverue taking the shrill "They'd be better off fixing the hospital over  there"  on the radio as if it was solely Waterford's responsibility to fight for THEIR Hospital[img=20x20]file:///C:/Users/Colm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif[/img] 

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

True! But you'd give up all that hurling for a Tesco's. Admit it. Especially if they went into Ferrybank SC.

Would have to think about what would bribe us to switch. We all have our price:).
I reckon you'd find it easier to persuade us to switch county than to get somebody to move into Ferrybank SC. Just ask Dunnes.

Parachutes wrote: »

Pretty much.

As a compromise why not allow Waterford City and County council to administer the area while allowing the area to still form part of Kilkenny county?

As much as I'd love to officially become part of Waterford I'd hate to allow the opposition to get in the way of a sensible idea.

Not sure how exactly it could be done but with a bit of imagination it might be possible. Done well, that's a possible compromise.

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

Now listen very very very carefully  so you won't have to embarrass yourself  by  make foolish statements like this one

"I, and others have asked repeatedly how moving the boundary will make a real difference to the development of the City or improve the lives of people in the affected area"

You have told repeatedly the reasons here or else you've lost the plot. Or else you are just bulsh!tting There are fifty pages of posts and the issues have been discussed. The issues are the basic neglect of the area. There are residential areas emerging there for years the oldest being abbey park and there are barely footpaths there even now.

The Ferrybank Shopping Centre is a textbook case of  bad planning. It is living proof that despite all the talk  of "co-operation" KK has no intention of doing so. The LAP for the area has so many contradictions it is  virtually unworkable. The whole aim of the LAP retail strategy is to maximize rates and deny Waterford access to its hinterland. This has been discussed here before! Where were you?

The smaller and more suitable neighborhood center near Abbey Park was more than enough. Even that is unoccupied since 2008. Not only did they try to sabotage Waterford but they also did so to Kilkenny residents with businesses in Ferrybank. I doubt Bobby Aylward brought this up in the Rhu Glenn. Contrast this with the Dunmore road and the town centre development near Ardkeen.

Your assessment of the cliffs behind the train station as an obstacle is BS. Similar topography in Billberry has not stopped housing being constructed. Major housing and mixed use development was planned for the Ard Ri. You also seem to be blissfully unaware that housing development also needs natural  amenities and access to public Transport.  

I don't know what logic you are using regarding the bridge or Logloss or if you even know the area outside of looking at a map. Either way you have inadvertently shown why the extension is needed These areas are also predicted to have strong growth and have already experienced it. The only places left to go is Ferrybank area and Logloss! The later is probably at a more advanced staged than Ferrybak/Belview.  You seem to be under the impression that Waterford has to exhaust all land  before an extension is justified? This is not how towns and cities are planned. Along with housing, allowances have to be made for industry and other land uses. There are two areas. Logloss/Carriclpherish and Ferrybank/Belview. It is not either/or it is both areas need to be developed in Tandem.  

. This is going to get worse. There is also a provision for a second bridge downstream in the land use strategy to connect The Bridge? Why do you think this inhibits housing development in Ferrybank? On the contrary development north of the river is needed to relieve congestion on the bridge. The industrial zone near Belview is a major source and destination of trafficthe area. There is no reason to think this is not achievable.  

As for your Hospital and University comments. Nice Try! But this is a mere deflection. These are highly important. But they are no less important issue in this country is proper planning.You seemed to have missed the banking inquiry! Sh!tty planning like Ferrybank SC is why we are stuck with dodgy entities like NAMA.  I heard a few of the residents of Slieverue taking the shrill "They'd be better off fixing the hospital over  there"  on the radio as if it was solely Waterford's responsibility to fight for THEIR Hospital[img=20x20]file:///C:/Users/Colm/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image002.gif[/img] 

Took me a while to get back to you. Firstly, I don't appreciate being told to listen very carefully or told that I'm embarrassing myself. I don't believe that I have been insulting to anyone else here, so let's try to keep this civil. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm thick. Sometimes people can have honest disagreements.

The Shopping Centre? Yes, it's a mess. However, it's not as though KKCC went and built it. Remember that An Bord Pleanala granted it permission too. Dunnes initially signed up to a lease. A bank, presumably funded it. So that's a number of other parties who supported it and thought that it could succeed. It was built in different times when Ferrybank looked like expanding rapidly(and Ferrybank will do so again).

Bilberry? My point is that that's a part of Waterford which was not developed until very recently. Everyone seems to assume that Ferrybank would be like the Dunmore Road if it had been part of Waterford. However, until Carn Glas was built in the 90's, you could reach open countryside a few hundred yards from Supervalu. So that's an area of Waterford even less developed than Ferrybank until very recently despite being under Waterford's jurisdiction. The lack of development in Ferrybank is not necessarily anything to do with which Council runs it. I suspect that Ferrybank would be no more developed today if you'd had the boundary extension 30 years ago. And Ferrybank did expand to a great degree in the years before the economic crash, again under the jurisdiction of Kilkenny County Council. Remember Councils do not build housing estates. Builders do. There is plenty infrastructure(e.g. water supply etc) in Ferrybank to allow it to expand under KKCC. If people want to move to new estates in Ferrybank, they will do so regardless of which Council runs it. There is no necessity for it all to be under one Council. Isn't Dublin divided into 4 local authorities?

As for the bolded bit, come on - surely you have to admit that having only one bridge is a bit of an issue? Have you ever seen the traffic in the morning over there? It's nearly all going in one direction and that's not in the direction of Belview. Ease of access to an area is crucial and having only one bridge is an impediment to Ferrybank's growth. You could say that Ferrybank's problem over the decades has been a chicken and egg one. People were slow to move there because there was a perception that there were no facilities. There were no facilities there because there weren't enough people there(who had access to ample facilities very close by in Waterford anyway). As Ferrybank expands that problem(lack of facilities) will resolve itself, regardless of which Council runs it.

Concerted effort...give me a break..objections by a hand full of people are not only standard for pretty much any development but does not make concerted effort or self sabotage..keep your blatant hatred and vitriol under wraps if you want anyone to genuinely be interested in half baked posts like above.

BBM77 wrote: »

This must be a new record for the most ridiculous negativity in a single post!

I think negativity is wrong word...idiotic, far fetched, delusional or living in their own misguided fantasy world for those not into the whole brevity thing.alas, it shows up the weakness of the against argument, get your submission in on the npf site as one thing for sure, the pitch fork crowd will be.

Squidvicious wrote: »

Took me a while to get back to you. Firstly, I don't appreciate being told to listen very carefully or told that I'm embarrassing myself. I don't believe that I have been insulting to anyone else here, so let's try to keep this civil. The fact that I disagree with you doesn't mean I'm thick. Sometimes people can have honest disagreements.

I really don’t care what you appreciate. I don’t appreciate having to go over the same sh!t over and over again for the benefit of someone who is either too lazy to inform themselves or just plain lying! You ARE embarrassing yourself. You made a ridiculous claim that nobody gave justifiable reason for the extension.

Squidvicious wrote: »

The Shopping Centre? Yes, it's a mess. However, it's not as though KKCC went and built it. Remember that An Bord Pleanala granted it permission too. Dunnes initially signed up to a lease. A bank, presumably funded it. So that's a number of other parties who supported it and thought that it could succeed. It was built in different times when Ferrybank looked like expanding rapidly(and Ferrybank will
do so again).

Banks don’t do planning so that point is moot. Dunnes Stores don’t do planning so that is also not relevant at all. An Bord Pleaneala arbitrate disputes! If there is no objection they will not get involved. So ABP did not endorse it. There was a subterfuge involved in the final application where the application was made, objected too by Waterford, withdrawn and made again. This is how it got through! If Waterford CC had been quicker off the mark and less trusting they would have objected and it would have been undoubtedly objected. Nothing at all to do with ABP[/quote]


Using the banks as an endorsement for this is like Jimmy Saville endorsing a kindergarten!

Squidvicious wrote: »

Bilberry? My point is that that's a part of Waterford which was not developed until very recently. Everyone seems to assume that Ferrybank would be like the Dunmore Road if it had been part of Waterford. However, until Carn Glas was built in the 90's, you could reach open countryside a few hundred yards from Supervalu. So that's an area of Waterford even less developed than Ferrybank until very recently despite being under Waterford's jurisdiction. The lack of development in

Your point is not valid! This backward view is known as incrementalism! It basically means Waterford has to develop all the land available in its jurisdiction before it things can happen on the other side of the Suir. It is also invalid as development in that area are over a decade old and some are approaching two decades. What is left is industrial or has access issues. Mount Congreve is not far from there for example. The necessity is so Waterford can focus the market forces to encourage growth in the area.

Kilkenny by their own admission use the area in question as a cash cow. They say 10% of their income is generated in the area yet they are unable to do basic things like provide footpaths. This is the point.

Squidvicious wrote: »

Ferrybank is not necessarily anything to do with which Council runs it. I suspect that Ferrybank would be no more developed today if you'd had the boundary extension 30 years ago. And Ferrybank did expand to a great degree in the years before the economic crash, again under the jurisdiction of Kilkenny County Council. Remember Councils do not build housing estates. Builders do. There is plenty infrastructure (e.g. water supply etc) in Ferrybank to allow it to expand under KKCC. If people want to move to new estates in Ferrybank, they will do so regardless of which Council runs it. There is no necessity for it all to be under one Council. Isn't Dublin divided into 4 local authorities?

Kilkenny has proven to be incapable of moving away from “Beggar thy neighbour” attitudes hence Ferrybank Shopping Centre, BTW Councils do build housing estates! They are also responsible for managing and implementing land use policies. Kilkenny have been seriously neglectful in that regard. If the area stays in Kilkenny’s control they can potentially obstruct population growth by zoning. Any co-operation that they have provided so far is at the behest of the Dept. of the Environment.

Squidvicious wrote: »

As for the bolded bit, come on - surely you have to admit that having only one bridge is a bit of an issue? Have you ever seen the traffic in the morning over there? It's nearly all going in one direction and that's not in the direction of Belview. Ease of access to an area is crucial and having only one bridge is an impediment to Ferrybank's growth. You could say that Ferrybank's problem over the decades has been a chicken and egg one. People were slow to move there because there was a perception that there were no facilities. There were no facilities there because there weren't enough people there(who had access to ample facilities very close by in Waterford anyway).

The chicken and egg thing is just makey uppy stuff! You are trying to use the single bridge as justification for opposition. It isn’t. It is the incrementalism argument! It just makes it more imperative that the growth of the city is managed in a more balanced way so that traffic can be equalized in both directions. It also ignores the fact that there is TWO bridges with plans for a third. The effective management can only be done from a single point in Waterford. The familiarity is there, the local knowledge is there. The cognitive dissonance that is prevalent in the LAP created by KK is NOT there.

Squidvicious wrote: »

As Ferrybank expands that problem(lack of facilities) will resolve itself, regardless of which Council runs it.

Jesus Wept! This statement is beyond belief! Yes it will resolve itself with the help of the infrastructure fairy. There has been estates over there for the last thirty years that barely have footpaths going to them.

fuzzy dunlop wrote: »

I really don’t care what you appreciate. I don’t appreciate having to go over the same sh!t over and over again for the benefit of someone who is either too lazy to inform themselves or just plain lying! You ARE embarrassing yourself. You made a ridiculous claim that nobody gave justifiable reason for the extension.

I stand by my point that no convincing argument has been made to show that the extension will make any major difference to Waterford's development. By development, I an principally talking about it's economic development. Will the extension make any difference in terms of job, hospital or educational facilities? No evidence that it will. Will it make any difference to the lives of people in John's Park, Viewmount or Hillview? I can't see that it will.



Banks don’t do planning so that point is moot. Dunnes Stores don’t do planning so that is also not relevant at all. An Bord Pleaneala arbitrate disputes! If there is no objection they will not get involved. So ABP did not endorse it. There was a subterfuge involved in the final application where the application was made, objected too by Waterford, withdrawn and made again. This is how it got through! If Waterford CC had been quicker off the mark and less trusting they would have objected and it would have been undoubtedly objected. Nothing at all to do with ABP

An Bord Pleanala's best known role is not arbitrating disputes. If I apply for planning permission and my application is rejected or if I have made a submission and wish to object to a permission granted by a local authority, I appeal to An Bord Pleanala and they will either approve or reject the planning permission/application. They do not arbitrate in such a situation. They made a decision to grant permission for the shopping centre so it wasn't just KKCC. An Bord Pleanala certainly did make a planning decision and they are an independent body. I'll concede your point on banks. However, Dunnes, while not planners, are good business people who clearly thought that the shopping centre was a runner. AFAIR, Waterford actually did object which is why it went to the Bord.




Using the banks as an endorsement for this is like Jimmy Saville endorsing a kindergarten!





Your point is not valid! This backward view is known as incrementalism! It basically means Waterford has to develop all the land available in its jurisdiction before it things can happen on the other side of the Suir. It is also invalid as development in that area are over a decade old and some are approaching two decades. What is left is industrial or has access issues. Mount Congreve is not far from there for example. The necessity is so Waterford can focus the market forces to encourage growth in the area.

You misunderstand my point. You appear to believe that the sole or main reason for the lack of development in Ferrybank is because it is administered by KKCC. My point is that this area of Waterford city is also relatively undeveloped. Go out Bilberry or Gracedieu road and you reach open country very quickly. Go downriver and it's 3 miles or more before you reach open countryside. There was no Kilkenny bogeyman to stymie development here so clearly other factors are at play. Is it not possible that other factors are at play in Ferrybank too and that it's not solely the fault of KKCC?

Kilkenny by their own admission use the area in question as a cash cow. They say 10% of their income is generated in the area yet they are unable to do basic things like provide footpaths. This is the point.




Kilkenny has proven to be incapable of moving away from “Beggar thy neighbour” attitudes hence Ferrybank Shopping Centre, BTW Councils do build housing estates! They are also responsible for managing and implementing land use policies. Kilkenny have been seriously neglectful in that regard. If the area stays in Kilkenny’s control they can potentially obstruct population growth by zoning. Any co-operation that they have provided so far is at the behest of the Dept. of the Environment.

The days of large scale council house building are long gone. What percentage of housing in the Waterford City area has been built by the Council in the past 30 years? Low single figures, I would imagine. KKCC has zoned large parts of Ferrybank. The infrastructure for house construction is clearly there. If not, how could the large scale house construction that took place in Ferrybank between 200 and 2008 have gone ahead? There is a logical contradiction is your above paragraph. On the one hand, KKCC engage in "beggar thy neighbour" policies. Presumably you mean that they'll permit anything to raise rates. If that's true why would they obstruct development? Surely, they'll facilitate as much development as possible to increase rates? The proof that Ferrybank can develop under KKCC jurisdiction is the large house building that took place between 200 and 2008.





The chicken and egg thing is just makey uppy stuff! You are trying to use the single bridge as justification for opposition. It isn’t. It is the incrementalism argument! It just makes it more imperative that the growth of the city is managed in a more balanced way so that traffic can be equalized in both directions. It also ignores the fact that there is TWO bridges with plans for a third. The effective management can only be done from a single point in Waterford. The familiarity is there, the local knowledge is there. The cognitive dissonance that is prevalent in the LAP created by KK is NOT there.

Plans for a third? If the government really wants growth in Ferrybank, that's the first thing that needs to be done. Extension or not, Ferrybank's focus will be on Waterford for many decades to come. Traffic won't be equalised for decades even in a best case scenario simply because people on the North side will still need to access South side shops, services, workplaces for the foreseeable future. I would concerns have Ferrybank simply can't sustain large scale development without another bridge. The traffic there is horrendous in the mornings. The existing second bridge hasn't relieved congestion on Rice Bridge partly because it's tolled and partly because it's too far upstream to sufficiently influence traffic in the City. It's mainly a by-pass. Proper infrastructural investment is what's needed for the North side of the river to grow not shifting the boundary. The extension is a mere sop instead of the government actually spending money in the area. A boundary extension on it's own will do little or nothing for Waterford.





Jesus Wept! This statement is beyond belief! Yes it will resolve itself with the help of the infrastructure fairy. There has been estates over there for the last thirty years that barely have footpaths going to them.[/QUOTE]


Can you name these estates? It's ironic that you claim that KKCC doesn't maintain the footpaths in Ferrybank when there's currently a thread running denouncing WCC for not maintaining the roads.

There. An entire polite reply without insulting you. Perhaps you can return the favour? Remember, the majority of what we are talking about is opinion. We all have a right to our own opinions even where we may disagree

Might a better solution not be to amalgamate Waterford and Kilkenny local authorities?

Squidvicious wrote: »

If you want change, the person arguing for it has got to make the case . What would Waterford do differently in Ferrybank if there is an extension?

As for the social and economic case, I've said before that I would have more sympathy for the proposal had it been an extension into the old Waterford City Council - at least the old Waterford city was a coherent entity as opposed to a county which extends from Ferrybank to Youghal bridge. As I've said before, if you really think that boundaries need changing, then do it properly and have a rational redesign of county boundaries on a countrywide basis to reflect economic and social realities rather than just moving a border a few fields in one direction.

So if countrywide boundary extensions took place you'd be happy, but if it's only Waterfords boundary extending into Kilkenny you're upset? That's fairly pathetic. You think you're suffering from this so you adopt the attitude 'If we have to suffer everyone else should too'.

Squidvicious wrote: »

If you want change, the person arguing for it has got to make the case . What would Waterford do differently in Ferrybank if there is an extension?

As for the social and economic case, I've said before that I would have more sympathy for the proposal had it been an extension into the old Waterford City Council - at least the old Waterford city was a coherent entity as opposed to a county which extends from Ferrybank to Youghal bridge. As I've said before, if you really think that boundaries need changing, then do it properly and have a rational redesign of county boundaries on a countrywide basis to reflect economic and social realities rather than just moving a border a few fields in one direction.

I'm sorry, but your deflection is shallow and pointless. And is just a deflection. Read the report - it makes a very strong, unambiguous case based on a wide range of socio-economic and environmental criteria. The view is based on best practice in terms of how cities are governed worldwide. A city that is fragmented like this is effectively being governed by two local authorities with very different agendas. This patently has not worked; Ferrybank as an urban entity is a failure in planning terms. The shopping centre is a living testament to the disregard that Kilkenny County Council has for city planning and for Waterford - it was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the city centre.

The report was very clear - that a boundary extension is warranted. This is known as 'evidence-based public policy'. I have yet to hear any convincing rational rebuttal of that proposal. All I have heard, aside from the childish rubbish, is -''prove things will be better for xxx living up in xxx''. Unfortunately, public policy doesn't work like that. It's time for a mature decision making process.