Remove The Parking – Then Charge People To Park?

The removal of parking spaces is now harming town-centre businesses in both Cashel and Thurles.

Cllr Roger Kennedy recently raised the alarm at a meeting of the Tipperary – Cahir – Cashel Municipal District. He said road-realignment works in Cashel had removed 12 parking spaces, leaving fewer places for passing customers and discouraging people from stopping in to shop locally.

Thurles traders know this story only too well.
Successive traffic and public-realm changes have reduced town-centre parking, while the approved second phase of the Liberty Square scheme will remove further spaces.
Traders strongly opposed that plan, warning that it could damage businesses and put further jobs at risk. Nevertheless, it was proposed by Cllr Ms Peggy Ryan, seconded by Cllr Mr Seán Ryan and approved by the municipal-district members.
Against this background, Tipperary County Council is pressing ahead with countywide “harmonised” parking charges.

So who came up with that idea?
The review began following calls from Clonmel councillors. Former Director of Services, Mr Marcus O’Connor, promised the review, after which the council’s Infrastructure Strategic Policy Committee and officials developed the tiered charging system. The final Parking Bye-Laws 2026 were approved by the full County Council on 13th July 2026.

Background to the parking review.
Thurles already had paid parking, it dates back at least to the former Thurles Town Council’s 2005 bye-laws. In April 2025, the elected members of Thurles Municipal District adopted replacement bye-laws retaining paid parking in Thurles. The 2026 countywide scheme now places Thurles in Tier 2 and is intended to standardise parking charges across the county.

The council says parking charges encourage turnover and help make spaces available to shoppers. But that argument becomes increasingly difficult to accept when the council is simultaneously approving schemes that remove the very spaces shoppers need.

You cannot improve parking turnover in spaces that no longer exist.
You cannot encourage people to shop locally while making it progressively more difficult—and more expensive—for them to stop.
You cannot speak about revitalising town centres while ignoring traders who depend on passing customers and convenient short-stay parking.

The issue is not simply parking charges, nor is it simply the removal of spaces. It is the combined effect:

Fewer town-centre parking spaces.
Charges on much of what remains.
Increased competition from out-of-town retailers offering free parking.
Less convenience for older people and those with limited mobility.
Reduced passing trade for independent businesses.
Decisions proceeding despite strong concerns from local traders.

There was significant resistance even among councillors themselves. An amendment allowing municipal districts to provide a one-hour-free-parking option passed by only 19 votes to 17. That close vote shows how divided elected representatives were over the council executive’s original 20-minutes-free proposal.

Cashel and Thurles need a joined-up parking policy based on the actual number of spaces available, business needs, accessibility and independently measured town-centre footfall, not a one-size-fits-all charging exercise.

Before further spaces are removed or new charges take effect, Tipperary County Council should publish:

The total number of spaces removed in each town during the past five years.
The number due to be removed under approved schemes.
The expected effect on footfall and local businesses.
Current occupancy and turnover figures.
A clear plan for replacement parking.
The names and recorded votes of councillors who approved the relevant schemes and bye-laws.

Local businesses are being asked to survive with fewer customers, fewer convenient spaces and additional parking costs.
That is not town-centre regeneration, but rather an obstacle to it.