Cork council merger plans to be axed but extension of city boundary recommended

Roger Hassenforder

mire wrote: »

Look up the local area plans, do I really need to go further? See Cork County councils Core Strategy. See CASP. It's not hard.

Huge untapped capacity for housing in existing designated lands. Midleton, Carrigtwohill, Cobh, Ballincollig South, blarney, stoneview, a new town at Monard,. That's in addition to huge capacity in city centre.

However, instead of trying to deliver these sites, and accessing outstanding infrastructure issues, Cork County Council had allowed itself to be persuaded by certain landowner and development interests to rezone hundreds of hectares of greenfield sites in addition to the above. This in fact undermines the core zonings. It's the opposite of good planning.

The ballyvolane proposal is one of the worst of these. It's classic suburban sprawl. If you think ballyvolane is a credible proposal, then you really know very little about the difference between good and bad planning.

You're all over the place in fairness, yet to back up a point with evidence, and back to your little digs. 2/10

For a purported expert on planning matters, you really need to inform yourself of the actual facts. they're trying to slow the growth in these areas and promote growth in the city.

You've mentioned developing areas that Mackinon himself has said haven't worked from a sustainable development perspective , and seeing as he's the international expert, are you saying he's wrong?

Stoneview/Monard progressing will eventually develop, and are contingent on N20 works, and other road infrastructural issues. In the meantime should we just wait...

Re. Ballyvolane, notwithstanding I've yet to express an opinion, (I'd actually prefer to see vacant sites redeveloped in higher density as priority rather than sprawl, but
CASP identifies it for a district centre to serve the NE of the city:

http://www.corkcity.ie/newdevelopmentplan/VOLUME%20ONE%20INTERACTIVE/C14%20INTERACTIVE%20HI%20RES.pdf

But you're the expert. City, County and MacKinnon are wrong and you're right.

mire

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

mire wrote: »

Look up the local area plans, do I really need to go further? See Cork County councils Core Strategy. See CASP. It's not hard.

Huge untapped capacity for housing in existing designated lands. Midleton, Carrigtwohill, Cobh, Ballincollig South, blarney, stoneview, a new town at Monard,. That's in addition to huge capacity in city centre.

However, instead of trying to deliver these sites, and accessing outstanding infrastructure issues, Cork County Council had allowed itself to be persuaded by certain landowner and development interests to rezone hundreds of hectares of greenfield sites in addition to the above. This in fact undermines the core zonings. It's the opposite of good planning.

The ballyvolane proposal is one of the worst of these. It's classic suburban sprawl. If you think ballyvolane is a credible proposal, then you really know very little about the difference between good and bad planning.

You're all over the place in fairness, yet to back up a point with evidence, and back to your little digs. 2/10

For a purported expert on planning matters, you really need to inform yourself of the actual facts. they're trying to slow the growth in these areas and promote growth in the city.

You've mentioned developing areas that Mackinon himself has said haven't worked from a sustainable development perspective , and seeing as he's the international expert, are you saying he's wrong?

Stoneview/Monard progressing will eventually develop, and are contingent on N20 works, and other road infrastructural issues. In the meantime should we just wait...

Re. Ballyvolane, notwithstanding I've yet to express an opinion, (I'd actually prefer to see vacant sites redeveloped in higher density as priority rather than sprawl, but
CASP identifies it for a district centre to serve the NE of the city:

http://www.corkcity.ie/newdevelopmentplan/VOLUME%20ONE%20INTERACTIVE/C14%20INTERACTIVE%20HI%20RES.pdf

But you're the expert. City, County and MacKinnon are wrong and you're right.

Oh dear, you've missed the point spectacularly, again. I'm almost sure that you've completely misinterpreted the MacKinnon perspective and that you have a very poor grasp of the whole CASP policy. You've completely got this wrong. The sites I referenced are in and close to existing settlements, public transport, services etc. Mackinnon does not in any way criticise these very sensible zonings.

Nowhere does Mackinnon or CASP propose to promote development that undermines the existing satellite town policy. That's more nonsense. Cork 2050, for example, proposes to grow the Metropolitan area to 500,000, which means facilitating up to 200,000 more people. This will inevitably involve consolidating the places I mentioned. Meaning significant growth. In the urban core as well as the metro areas.

Somehow, you (mis)interpret what CASP and Mackinnon say in quite an interesting way. These policies /reports do NOT propose constraining and preventing growth in the metro areas. They support accelerating growth in the urban core and in particular locations within metro Cork. Along the rail line, monard etc, and moderating growth in places with limited public transport capacity like Ballincollig and Carrigaline. This is well known. It was what the CASP review was based on.

Re. ballyvolane, you are confused. I'm not talking about the district centre designation. I'm talking about the new Cork County Council (not CASP) proposal to zone a huge tract of land north of ballyvolane for more suburban sprawl. It's shockingly bad. It's anti CASP, anti planning. But it'll allow builders build housing. You should look it up.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Patrick 1959 wrote: »

You might find this hard to believe but I don’t own a phone and l am learning to using this I pad for less than a year, try to get use posting a lot less .that post took me 1 hour to finish so I can tell you I did put a lot of effort into it .if you feel annoyed with my post ,don’t be rude just don’t answer.

Annoyed? Again you are seeing emotion where there is none; relax.

I could see you had some quotes from me, so was just replying in case there was some type of question in the jumble.

If you say you don't have a phone, I don't find it hard to believe; why would I care either way?

Reputable Rog

Patrick 1959 wrote: »

Simple answer I don’t know, I imagine through the rates generated in there. Cork county council were at pains to tell City Council they’ll make 16 Million a year from meager Extension they offered . I heard 80 million plus in rates for the area the wants.

Wrong answer, they will have to borrow the money. The additional income they generate under MacKinnon would be used to service existing debt.
The extension has not been thought through properly.

Roger Hassenforder

mire wrote: »

Oh dear, you've missed the point spectacularly, again. I'm almost sure that you've completely misinterpreted the MacKinnon perspective and that you have a very poor grasp of the whole CASP policy. You've completely got this wrong. The sites I referenced are in and close to existing settlements, public transport, services etc. Mackinnon does not in any way criticise these very sensible zonings.

Nowhere does Mackinnon or CASP propose to promote development that undermines the existing satellite town policy. That's more nonsense. Cork 2050, for example, proposes to grow the Metropolitan area to 500,000, which means facilitating up to 200,000 more people. This will inevitably involve consolidating the places I mentioned. Meaning significant growth. In the urban core as well as the metro areas.

Somehow, you (mis)interpret what CASP and Mackinnon say in quite an interesting way. These policies /reports do NOT propose constraining and preventing growth in the metro areas. They support accelerating growth in the urban core and in particular locations within metro Cork. Along the rail line, monard etc, and moderating growth in places with limited public transport capacity like Ballincollig and Carrigaline. This is well known. It was what the CASP review was based on.

Re. ballyvolane, you are confused. I'm not talking about the district centre designation. I'm talking about the new Cork County Council (not CASP) proposal to zone a huge tract of land north of ballyvolane for more suburban sprawl. It's shockingly bad. It's anti CASP, anti planning. But it'll allow builders build housing. You should look it up.

You really cant help yourself can you with the prolix auld guff, replete with rudeness and naked anti County Council vitriol (stopping short of calling them corrupt/in the builder pockets). At first glance appearing to have a modicum of authority, but when requested to provide evidence, you strawman and shift the goal posts, repeat and deflect, or as in a previous CASP divergence, disappear for a few days.

Every point I make is backed up with a link, which you being unable to reciprocate for fear your whole "argument" will collapse into the pile of bluster it is. But it is me who "misunderstands, is confused, has poor grasps" etc.


So once again for the cheap seats:

From the CASP review:
"Of particular significance is the need to reverse the decline in population in the City and the rapid expansion in population in rural areas of Ring Towns, contrary to what was envisaged ... simply permitting a continuation of existing trends. This would, however, have resulted in a decline in the population of Cork City"

"CASP update gives priority to locations close to the city for new population growth, in addition to the allocation to the city itself ... a significant increase in population is targeted for Ballincollig and for Ballyvolane. " :eek: (ref. Cork City CDP objective 14.39 to 14.41) and Cobh LAP

"The prioritisation of development based on sustainability is reflected in the phasing, whereby growth will be first directed along the rail line and in the City and Docklands".

"The emerging issue of growth in the hinterlands of the Ring Towns is recognised. The realignment of CASP as outlined in this updated strategy points to the need to respond to this issue..of concern is that the revised population targets for the hinterland of the ring towns are already close to being achieved"

Indecon International Economic Consultants, RPS Consultants and Savills HOK are wrong, and you're right...



"High rates of development are identified in the villages and rural areas in the CASP ring area which..has contributed to unnecessarily low growth rates for the Gateway (mainly the city)...This trend, if allowed to continue, represents a significant weakening of the urban structure of the Cork Gateway, itself the urban-core on which the South West Region depends. If not corrected, this trend may cause a weakening in the attractiveness of the Gateway to inward investment in future jobs and services’
(South West Regional Authority, 2010: 17)
so they're wrong as well?


The Cork Gateway report produced as part of the Gateways and Hubs Development Index 2012 notes that a challenge exists within the urban core to attract and accommodate population growth and that one of the significant contributory factors is the shortage of suitable land within the urban core which can accommodate development on the scale required to encourage substantial population growth

All summarized in the County Development Plan:
"The Metropolitan area (including Cork City) did not perform as well (­16,852 persons or ­49%) relative to the rate of growth required to reach the SWRPG target by 2022. At the same time, the Greater Cork Ring area recorded an increase of 10,724 persons 406% over target. This means that the Metropolitan area is growing at about half the rate intended by the SWRPG and at the same time the Greater Cork Ring area is growing at over four times the rate intended by the SWRPG".

CDP core strategies giving effect to the SW Regional Guidelines(see above) as is statutorily required, manifesting themselves in the LAPs.

Other than simple continuous anti Council bile, I cant see any other reason for your continued rejection of something being put into motion, that was required years ago.

I could go on all day with links.
You, meanwhile have yet to provide one.

snotboogie

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

All summarized in the County Development Plan:
"The Metropolitan area (including Cork City) did not perform as well (­16,852 persons or ­49%) relative to the rate of growth required to reach the SWRPG target by 2022. At the same time, the Greater Cork Ring area recorded an increase of 10,724 persons 406%  over  target. This  means  that  the Metropolitan area is growing at about half the rate intended by the SWRPG and at the same time the Greater Cork Ring area is growing at over four times the rate intended by the SWRPG".

CDP core strategies giving effect to the SW Regional Guidelines(see above) as is statutorily required, manifesting themselves in the LAPs.

Other than simple continuous anti Council bile, I cant see any other reason for your continued rejection of something being put into motion, that was required years ago.

I could go on all day with links.
You, meanwhile have yet to provide one.

That is using 2006 to 2011 census data, it would be more beneficial to see 2011 to 2016 stats to see where both areas stand now.

Roger Hassenforder

snotboogie wrote: »

That is using 2006 to 2011 census data, it would be more beneficial to see 2011 to 2016 stats to see where both areas stand now.

its what the current CDPs are based on. However, I'm sure as you're interested, you'll have made a submission on the LAPs using any new data, and seek to reverse this...

mire

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

mire wrote: »

Oh dear, you've missed the point spectacularly, again. I'm almost sure that you've completely misinterpreted the MacKinnon perspective and that you have a very poor grasp of the whole CASP policy. You've completely got this wrong. The sites I referenced are in and close to existing settlements, public transport, services etc. Mackinnon does not in any way criticise these very sensible zonings.

Nowhere does Mackinnon or CASP propose to promote development that undermines the existing satellite town policy. That's more nonsense. Cork 2050, for example, proposes to grow the Metropolitan area to 500,000, which means facilitating up to 200,000 more people. This will inevitably involve consolidating the places I mentioned. Meaning significant growth. In the urban core as well as the metro areas.

Somehow, you (mis)interpret what CASP and Mackinnon say in quite an interesting way. These policies /reports do NOT propose constraining and preventing growth in the metro areas. They support accelerating growth in the urban core and in particular locations within metro Cork. Along the rail line, monard etc, and moderating growth in places with limited public transport capacity like Ballincollig and Carrigaline. This is well known. It was what the CASP review was based on.

Re. ballyvolane, you are confused. I'm not talking about the district centre designation. I'm talking about the new Cork County Council (not CASP) proposal to zone a huge tract of land north of ballyvolane for more suburban sprawl. It's shockingly bad. It's anti CASP, anti planning. But it'll allow builders build housing. You should look it up.

You really cant help yourself can you with the prolix auld guff, replete with rudeness and naked anti County Council vitriol (stopping short of calling them corrupt/in the builder pockets). At first glance appearing to have a modicum of authority, but when requested to provide evidence, you strawman and shift the goal posts, repeat and deflect, or as in a previous CASP divergence, disappear for a few days.

Every point I make is backed up with a link, which you being unable to reciprocate for fear your whole "argument" will collapse into the pile of bluster it is. But it is me who "misunderstands, is confused, has poor grasps" etc.


So once again for the cheap seats:

From the CASP review:
"Of particular significance is the need to reverse the decline in population in the City and the rapid expansion in population in rural areas of Ring Towns, contrary to what was envisaged ... simply permitting a continuation of existing trends. This would, however, have resulted in a decline in the population of Cork City"

"CASP update gives priority to locations close to the city for new population growth, in addition to the allocation to the city itself ... a significant increase in population is targeted for Ballincollig and for Ballyvolane. " :eek: (ref. Cork City CDP objective 14.39 to 14.41) and Cobh LAP

"The prioritisation of development based on sustainability is reflected in the phasing, whereby growth will be first directed along the rail line and in the City and Docklands".

"The emerging issue of growth in the hinterlands of the Ring Towns is recognised. The realignment of CASP as outlined in this updated strategy points to the need to respond to this issue..of concern is that the revised population targets for the hinterland of the ring towns are already close to being achieved"

Indecon International Economic Consultants, RPS Consultants and Savills HOK are wrong, and you're right...



"High rates of development are identified in the villages and rural areas in the CASP ring area which..has contributed to unnecessarily low growth rates for the Gateway (mainly the city)...This trend, if allowed to continue, represents a significant weakening of the urban structure of the Cork Gateway, itself the urban-core on which the South West Region depends. If not corrected, this trend may cause a weakening in the attractiveness of the Gateway to inward investment in future jobs and services’
(South West Regional Authority, 2010: 17)
so they're wrong as well?


The Cork Gateway report produced as part of the Gateways and Hubs Development Index 2012 notes that a challenge exists within the urban core to attract and accommodate population growth and that one of the significant contributory factors is the shortage of suitable land within the urban core which can accommodate development on the scale required to encourage substantial population growth

All summarized in the County Development Plan:
"The Metropolitan area (including Cork City) did not perform as well (­16,852 persons or ­49%) relative to the rate of growth required to reach the SWRPG target by 2022. At the same time, the Greater Cork Ring area recorded an increase of 10,724 persons 406% over target. This means that the Metropolitan area is growing at about half the rate intended by the SWRPG and at the same time the Greater Cork Ring area is growing at over four times the rate intended by the SWRPG".

CDP core strategies giving effect to the SW Regional Guidelines(see above) as is statutorily required, manifesting themselves in the LAPs.

Other than simple continuous anti Council bile, I cant see any other reason for your continued rejection of something being put into motion, that was required years ago.

I could go on all day with links.
You, meanwhile have yet to provide one.

After all that work and serious effort, you still don't comprehend the core argument.

Roger Hassenforder

mire wrote: »

After all that work and serious effort, you still don't comprehend the core argument.

And another stunning riposte from yourself...

DylanGLC

Good news today. Hopefully the airport and Ballincollig will still be included and then it would be perfect for everyone

Need for negotiation stressed by Minister on Cork city boundary dispute

Hopes of finding a resolution to the controversial Cork city boundary extension dispute have received a boost following a letter from Minister for Local Government, Eoghan Murphy to the mayor of Cork County which stresses the need for negotiation and agreement.

According to county council sources, the letter suggests that there is room for negotiation on the Mackinnon report on the Cork city boundary extension with the implementation oversight group appointed by the Minister adopting a more facilitative rather than a directive role in the process.
The letter from Mr Murphy marks a shift in the role envisaged for the group . It opens up the possibility of negotiation between the Cork City Council and Cork County Council on the exact location of the boundary for the city extension, say county sources.

The Mackinnon report was prepared by a group reviewing local government in Cork and chaired by former chief planner for Scotland, Jim Mackinnon. It recommended an expansion of Cork city that would see the size of the city increase seven fold and its population grow from 125,000 to 225,000.
The Mackinnon report recommended an expansion of the city to include suburbs contiguous to the city such as Rochestown, Frankfield, Grange and Ballyvolane as well as surrounding satellite towns and villages such as Ballincollig, Killumney, Blarney, Glanmire, Little Island and Carrigtwohill.

However the report, which was welcomed by Cork City Council upon publication in June, provoked huge controversy in Cork County Council . Councillors warned that implementing the expansion will result in the county council losing a major section of its revenue earning base around the city.
Cork County Council later responded by offering to cede land in Rochestown, Grange, Frankfield and Ballyvolane to the city while retaining Ballincollig, Blarney, Glanmire, Little Island and Carrigtwohill. This was rejected by Cork City Council which argued Mackinnon was not up for debate.

But following a two hour briefing by Cork County Council chief executive Tim Lucey to councillors on Thursday afternoon, a number of county council sources told The Irish Times that they believe the letter from Mr Murphy was “a game changer” and provided the basis for a compromise deal.

According to the sources, the compromise is likely to involve all the southern suburbs already offered by the county such as Rochestown, Grange and Frankfield as well as Ballyvolane on the northern edge of the city all being ceded to the urban local authority.

It is expected that the northern expansion of the city would begin at the N8 in Dunkettle and incorporate all areas to the west including Glanmire with the northern boundary being formed by the planned Northern Ring Road which is expected to run around Kilbarry, Killeens and Clogheen.

Such a boundary would mean that Blarney and Tower would remain in the county, while Carrigtwohill in East Cork would also remain in the county - leaving Ballincollig in the west, Little Island in the east and Cork Airport to the south the three main areas up for negotiation.

“The city are very keen to get Ballincollig because it would help them reach the magical number of 200,000 in population terms and if Ballincollig was to go in its entirety, it would be big enough to be a municipal district in its own right which might help sweeten the deal locally,” said one source.

“That would leave Little Island and Cork Airport and while Cork Airport isn’t a huge source of revenue for the county, Little Island with all its industry is a revenue rich area so there would be tough negotiations there but at least there would be negotiations so a resolution is possible.”

According to sources, the oversight group was due to report to Mr Murphy by the end of October and while a deal is unlikely to meet that deadline, agreement should be reached before the end of November as all sides recognise the need for a resolution sooner rather than later.

kub

Hopefully we might see some progress soon http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Coveney-warns-Cork-councils-to-reach-an-agreement-on-the-boundary-5f0f856a-5c3d-4dbd-97e8-504d3e1f3613-ds

j8wk2feszrnpao

kub wrote: »

Hopefully we might see some progress soon http://www.eveningecho.ie/corknews/Coveney-warns-Cork-councils-to-reach-an-agreement-on-the-boundary-5f0f856a-5c3d-4dbd-97e8-504d3e1f3613-ds

Maybe it should be a government decision? City and County Councils are probably going to come to an agreement that suits them more than any 'central plan' for growth in the region and the people within.
Lets just hope that Simon doesn't plant a spade in the ground when he starts making up his mind.

Water John

I thought Coveney was Minister for Foreign Affairs, not Local Affairs.

j8wk2feszrnpao

Water John wrote: »

I thought Coveney was Minister for Foreign Affairs, not Local Affairs.

Simon Coveney TD - Cork South Central

Water John

Yeah, and he was the lad, pushing the single super council brainwave. Like Smiddy, time for him too to keep his mouth shut.

Then he dreamt up the water quango fiasco as well.

kub

munstermagic11 wrote: »

Simon Coveney TD - Cork South Central

Indeed, lets hope he remembers that Cork bit, because with the way the Event Centre is going, his record on delivering anything for Cork is not at all great.

fonzy951

kub wrote: »

Indeed, lets hope he remembers that Cork bit, because with the way the Event Centre is going, his record on delivering anything for Cork is not at all great.

Coveney was involved in securing government funding for PUC and the Events Centre during a recession, not sure what else he is supposed to do for these projects.

FF during the so called boom delivered sweet f*uck all funding for these projects or the docklands and Cork in general.

j8wk2feszrnpao

fonzy951 wrote: »

Coveney was involved in securing government funding for PUC and the Events Centre during a recession, not sure what else he is supposed to do for these projects.

FF during the so called boom delivered sweet f*uck all funding for these projects or the docklands and Cork in general.

FF delivered the tunnel?


Nah. Lets be serious, these are public funded projects, I give FG/FF/insert-party no credit.
Simon had little to do with PUC in the larger scheme of things, and the Events Center is probably closer to not happening than actually happening.

This isn't FG V FF; does anyone really care who delivers it as long as it's done correctly?

And Simon may be unable to influence government decision making; but then keep your head out of spade planting photo opportunists if you want to avoid criticism.

Roger Hassenforder

Water John wrote: »

Yeah, and he was the lad, pushing the single super council brainwave. Like Smiddy, time for him too to keep his mouth shut.

Then he dreamt up the water quango fiasco as well.

is Simon just motivated by the next election I wonder.
Constituency lost Ballincollig in 2007, and Bishopstown in 2016, and reduced to 4 seats from 5. does he need that that seat back, is his seat under pressure. Simon 4th over the line in 2016, ahead of Jerry Buttimer, but has now has pissed off the entire cadre of FG Councillors and Tds in the County. I think he has misread the mood in the County, more conciliatory language might have been more appropriate.
He probably couldn't get shot of Housing/local government i.e. Irish water fast enough.

Water John

Looks like, he might have a chance to find out very soon, in an election. This boundary extension will be an interesting, local issue.

Roger Hassenforder

it seems there's a deal:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cork-city-to-expand-as-boundary-deal-agreed-463917.html

Airport, Ballincollig and Blarney into City, but Little Island staying put.

Reputable Rog

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

it seems there's a deal:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/cork-city-to-expand-as-boundary-deal-agreed-463917.html

Airport, Ballincollig and Blarney into City, but Little Island staying put.

From what I have heard this morning, progress has been made but its a long way from a deal.

Roger Hassenforder

Reputable Rog wrote: »

From what I have heard this morning, progress has been made but its a long way from a deal.

love the bespoke location in the sig!

boardsuser1

I’d say secretly Little Island was the big one all along due to the rates issue, Carrigtwohill is only following as they are further down the road.

I can see people being up in arms as they will say having a city address will devalue the properties.

Meursault

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

I’d say secretly Little Island was the big one all along due to the rates issue, Carrigtwohill is only following as they are further down the road.

I can see people being up in arms as they will say having a city address will devalue the properties.

Where did you get the idea that a "city address" devalues a property? I dont see how it affected Douglas, Wilton, Montenotte, Rochestown, etc, etc.

Great that a deal is finally done. Little Island is in no mans land between city and county. its probably right that carrig stays in the county. good that ballincolig, airport, etc moves within city bounds.

boardsuser1

Meursault wrote: »

Where did you get the idea that a "city address" devalues a property? I dont see how it affected Douglas, Wilton, Montenotte, Rochestown, etc, etc.

Great that a deal is finally done. Little Island is in no mans land between city and county. its probably right that carrig stays in the county. good that ballincolig, airport, etc moves within city bounds.

In laws living in Glanmire.

They’ve said it.

Roger Hassenforder

Reputable Rog wrote: »

From what I have heard this morning, progress has been made but its a long way from a deal.

not that I doubted you , but I've just heard the same!

Outkast_IRE

I live in Little Island - I would rather it went to the city, the county council is not fit for purpose in urban areas. Little Island is one of the biggest earners for the county and they have spent virtually nothing on the island for a long time. Roads are a shambles in places, Access & Egreess from the island is insufficent for the level of development that has occured there, 2nd entrance / exit directly onto the N25 is required from the east end of the island to sort the traffic issues.

County council will never pick up litter, will only maintain / cut grass along the roadways at the bare minimum a couple of times a year.

Meursault

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

In laws living in Glanmire.

They’ve said it.

Sorry, I'm sure your inlaws have their concerns, but I cant see how moving from the official "county" bounds to "city" bounds would have any impact on house prices. Glanmire is a nice place to live, with higher house prices because it is a nice area, with loads of amenities, schools, , shops, etc and it is close to the city. None of this will change overnight, because of the proposed extension to the city bounds.

The closer you get to city areas, the higher in value property becomes. this is the same everywhere. it is why the North west of the country has the cheapest property and the price of property goes through the roof, as you get closer to Dublin city.

It is all about quality of life, jobs, schools, safety, etc. It has nothing to do with this proposal.

mire

I'm not sure this is necessarily a done deal either, although I suspect some level of informal agreement may have been reached at executive level. Carrigtwohill and little island were key parts of the rates argument, and are worth much more than Ballincollig, Blarney, Glanmire.

I suspect that there is now political will at a national level to complete this process, after five years of debate - and that local political reactions from city and county councillors will ultimately be sidelined. There has been a notable change in the tone of discussion in the last 6 to 8 weeks, and I suspect this is the result of a deliberate strategy.