Septic tank charges

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

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).

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.

Welease wrote: »

If we were going to go to a similar model, if would be better if we upscaled to more than our current county councils. We probably have too many, and lose any potential economies of scale and gain duplication of administration.

Indeed, our councils are relics of a time gone by. They should have been reformed/amalgamated years ago. TDs however are afraid of more powerful local democracy because it's easier to hide behind problems "up in Dublin" so to speak.

This is why Leinster House destroyed Dublin County Council-it was getting too big for its boots and had to be culled. The correct course of action would have been to create a Greater Dublin Authority by merging the then Dublin County Council with Dublin City Council. We may then have avoided a lot of silly buggers at county boundaries.

Chipboard wrote: »

If rural dwellers who fitted their own septic tanks have to pay the tax and pay to fix the tank, why shouldn't city dwellers, who won't have to pay to fix the waste water treatment plants, have to pay the tax.

Grand we will. Will you top up the amount so that your County Council gets no subsidy from citydwellers?

murphaph wrote: »

No. People who live in conurbations should benefit from that. One of the benefits is economy of scale. It's cheaper to provide waste water treatment to a conurbation of 100k people than to 100k people on their own systems.

Absolutely, it should cost a fraction of the amount a septic tank etc costs per head..

However the point still stands If people are so gung-ho for septic tank owners to pick up the cost for their units (which they should btw!), then there should be little complaint if those who utilise public systems have to contribute to the upkeep of their respective systems..

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Cheaper - yes.

Free - no.

No, of course it can't be free. Someone has to pay.

As I've said before, I'd be happy for local communes and larger towns and cities to levy their own taxes to provide local services and infrastructure, so long as they weren't also expected to subsidise the upkeep of non-national roads, power lines likely to be blown down at the first sign of a gale, Garda stations with 2 Guards and schools with 3 pupils etc. in sparsely populated areas. Sparsely populated areas should naturally have a dearth of services and infrastructure and densely populated areas should naturally have an abundance of them.

People should be free to live in isolation (provided their dwellings are sympathetic to the natural environment in which they are built-not often the case in Ireland) however they should not expect the local road (which is of absolutely no importance to the country at large) on which their house stands to be maintained to anywhere near the same standards as in urban areas, nor should they expect to pay the same for electricity provision, given the extra costs incurred in maintaining rural electricity supplies: urban supplies can be undergrounded cost effectively and this ensures they won't blow down every winter. Electricity and telephone 8assuming fixed line) should cost more, (not just an extra fee for installation, it should cost more forever), road tax should be levied on fuel, so people who insist on living in isolation from the rest of us should pay for their extra pollution (as should urban dwellers who insist on driving instead of taking public transport).

Manach wrote: »

Perhaps as well rural dwellers can charge for a share of the tourist trade for the maintanence of the countryside and be exempt from "green" taxes due to a contribution to biodiversity and oxygen production.

To be quite frank, the explosion of one off housing has helped kill the once flourishing tourist trade in rural Ireland. They have killed the goose that was capable of laying the golden egg. Tourists coming to Ireland have a fixed impression in their minds: they are often deeply disappointed to find our patchwork of green fields, hedgerows and stone walls have been replaced in many places by suburbia with slightly more space between the houses.

Far from maintaining the countryside, one off housing builders have ruined it to a very large degree. Go to England (one of the most densely populated countries on earth) and see how they manage their countryside and have managed to preserve the natural beauty of large swathes of it.

Of course the usual cries coming from West of the Shannon in relation to diminishing tourist revenues tend to blame Failte Ireland for not marketing them enough. What's left to market though? The countryside has nothing to offer tourists once it's been carpeted in one off houses, absolutely nothing.

Deleted User wrote: »

The UK is a disaster, because of their idiotic decision to ban one of houses they now have some of the smallest properties in the western world. They are THE WORST in the OECD - i.e among wider Europe, US, Canada, Australia & NZ etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8201900.stm

They are forced to live on top of each other in cramped conditions. Self inflicted because of their law.

You can protect sections of the countryside from one off housing such as national parks - and widen these if necessary. But Ireland has a large rural population and banning one off housing would be forcing another way of life upon people. We are not a dictatorship. If people have a problem with urban/rural tax distribution I suggest that imbalance be fixed instead.

Ireland has 6 national parks-all tiny. Please open google maps (map version) and put ireland and the UK in the frame. The green bits are national parks. With Ireland and the UK in frame you can't even make out the boundaries of any of the Irish national parks on my laptop screen (cramped as it is ) whereas the UK's are plain to see. Our national parks pay no more than lip service to the notion-quite pathetic really.

Would you think that property owners living adjacent to existing Irish NPs would be for or against the park's being made bigger to encompass their house? One off housing is so prevalent in Ireland that we cannot expand or create new NPs without encircling lots of houses in the process-the horse has already bolted basically. I think the countryside has effectively been lost across most of what was once rural Ireland. I just think that we should now see urban areas levy and KEEP their own taxes to at least be able to provide good services for their inhabitants. People who want to live in isolation should fend for themselves in all respects.

Btw, the linked magazine piece (the BBC didn't think it worthy of calling it news) was restricted to an hour's drive of London. You could still have 3000 ft² houses if you wanted, built in villages or hamlets, with street lighting, footpaths and local shops and not build an isolated property, so the space thing is a red herring.

Deleted User wrote:

The UK is a disaster, because of their idiotic decision to ban one of houses they now have some of the smallest properties in the western world. They are THE WORST in the OECD - i.e among wider Europe, US, Canada, Australia & NZ etc.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8201900.stm

They are forced to live on top of each other in cramped conditions. Self inflicted because of their law.

You extrapolated this is the conclusion of Green Belt policies??

:rolleyes: Please. What nonsense, UK household sizes have been dropping for years.

You can protect sections of the countryside from one off housing such as national parks - and widen these if necessary. But Ireland has a large rural population and banning one off housing would be forcing another way of life upon people. We are not a dictatorship. If people have a problem with urban/rural tax distribution I suggest that imbalance be fixed instead.

I suggest you find a nice cabin in Arizona where you can fulminate about 'da Man' trying to force you to send your kids to school...and practice your banjo.

No-one is being rounded up and forced into Docklands Apartments ffs.

elaverty wrote: »

Id say that this is someone haveing a laugh and takeing the PISS,,,,It wouldnt work,,,and the old cortina would be worth more now if he had of kept it in the shed and he could now have afforded a treatment system after selling it,,,:)

While the old Cortina example is on the extreme side and I dare say unique, there will almost certainly be plenty of "improvised" systems out there. I know cousins of mine who had such an improvised system. They can't be alone.

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly what I mean, a septic tank kept away from running water & lakes
wont do any harm whether its working or not once your well is drilled to correct depth and was installed correctly - i.e no seepage from shallow depths.

Soil is a filter, deep enough it filters bacteria

Until they are actually inspected we won't know how many are poorly sited.

Sponge Bob wrote: »

since the thread started none of the urban posters have acknowledged their part in polluting rivers or addressed why sewage charges should NOT be universal.....just like shhh sewage us.

That's not the case, read the thread!