A major expansion of Cloverhill Prison is set to begin, following the signing of a construction contract for a new accommodation block at the west Dublin facility.
The project, awarded to JJ Rhatigan & Co., is expected to take 22 months to complete. Once finished, it will increase Cloverhill’s capacity from 433 places to more than 700, adding 267 spaces to an institution that has faced sustained pressure from overcrowding.
At the centre of the development will be a four-storey extension to Block D. The new building will contain 143 cells and will be designed to accommodate up to 270 prisoners. It represents the largest construction project undertaken by the Irish Prison Service in several years and forms a central part of the State’s wider programme to modernise and expand the prison estate. The expansion is intended to provide safer, more suitable accommodation for people in custody while improving working conditions for prison staff. It is also expected to support rehabilitation services by creating a more modern environment in which education, healthcare and structured prison programmes can be delivered. Cloverhill is one element of a broader capital plan that aims to provide more than 1,500 additional prison spaces between 2024 and 2031. The programme has been developed in response to rising prisoner numbers, overcrowding and the need to replace or extend ageing facilities.
Cloverhill Prison.
Since 2024, some 265 spaces have been completed across the prison system. This includes 126 places delivered in 2024, 106 in 2025 and 33 during the first part of 2026. A further 32 spaces are due to be completed before the end of this year, followed by another 70 in 2027.
Other major projects planned under the programme include a substantial extension to Cork Prison on the site of the former prison, a new accommodation block at Wheatfield Prison and an additional block extension at the Midlands Prison. Further capacity is also being developed at Castlerea, Mountjoy, the Dóchas Centre and Limerick Male Prison.
The Government has allocated €67.9 million in capital funding to the Irish Prison Service for 2026. This forms part of a €528 million investment package covering the period from 2026 to 2030, with €495 million earmarked for prison construction and expansion projects. The investment also reflects a shift toward long-term capacity planning, rather than relying solely on short-term measures to manage growing pressure throughout the prison system.
Planning work is also due to advance on a new prison at the Thornton site in north County Dublin. A master plan is expected to determine how the site will be shared by the Irish Prison Service, International Protection Accommodation Services and An Garda Síochána. Construction work at Thornton is currently planned to begin in 2030.
The Cloverhill contract marks a significant step in the prison building programme. With construction now moving forward, the project is expected to deliver badly needed capacity and help reshape the prison estate for the demands of the coming decade.
One Council Restores History While Another Erases It – The Loss of Thurles’s Famine Double Ditch.
The decision by Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council to spend approximately €660,000plus VAT restoring a historic ha-ha wall in Marlay Park (latter a sunken landscape boundary that uses a hidden trench and a vertical retaining wall), has understandably generated debate. The 197-metre structure, believed to date from the early nineteenth century, was designed to separate landscaped gardens from grazing animals without interrupting views across the estate. Much of its original locally sourced granite survived beneath vegetation, but the wall had fallen into disrepair. Restoration required specialist conservation work, dismantling and rebuilding sections of dry-stone wall, repairing the ditch and incorporating drainage infrastructure. The original contract was valued at €625,398 excluding VAT, with the final estimate rising to €660,374 following delays, unsuitable ground material, severe weather and difficulties obtaining appropriate stone.
Local construction professionals and taxpayers are entitled to question whether that represents value for money. Public bodies must explain how costs are calculated, why projects exceed their initial budgets and whether procurement arrangements adequately protect the public purse. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has already faced criticism over the €753,528 cost of works at an entrance to Deerpark in Mount Merrion. That project is frequently described as the construction of “14 steps”, although the council says it also included a wheelchair-accessible ramp, retaining walls, granite paving, seating, landscaping, pedestrian crossings, road resurfacing, drainage, traffic-signal equipment and other public-realm works. The criticism of these costs is legitimate. Nevertheless, one important fact should not be forgotten: Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council recognised that an historic structure was worth preserving.
That approach stands in painful contrast to what happened in Thurles.
The Thurles Great Famine Double Ditch was regarded locally as a rare surviving famine-era landscape feature. Local historical accounts date its construction accurately to 1846 and associate it with relief work provided to men and boys during the Great Famine. Rather than representing the landscaped elegance of a wealthy Dublin estate, this Double Ditch recalled hunger, poverty and the desperate struggle of local families to survive. It was not simply an old embankment. It was a physical connection with one of the darkest periods in Irish history. For generations, the route was also described locally as a public walkway and Mass path. Campaigners argued that it formed part of the social history of Thurles and should have been incorporated into a protected heritage trail.
Despite repeated warnings, the entire section of the Double Ditch was cleared in March 2022 supported by local councillors, as part of works connected with as yet a non existent, only proposed Thurles inner relief road. Contemporary photographs and local reporting showed mature vegetation being removed and the historic landscape feature being levelled by machinery.
Historic Thurles Double Ditch Eradicated in 2022. Pic. G.Willoughby.
Once such a structure is destroyed, it cannot truly be recreated. A replica might reproduce its approximate appearance, but it cannot restore the original stones, soil, boundaries and physical connection with the people who constructed it during the Great Famine.
This is the real loss suffered by Thurles. Tipperary County Council regularly speaks about protecting heritage and connecting communities with their past. Yet the treatment of the Double Ditch demonstrates the gulf that can exist between heritage policies and decisions taken on the ground. Roads and development are necessary, but heritage protection does not require a complete rejection of progress. It requires imagination, consultation and a willingness to examine alternative designs before destruction becomes inevitable.
The contrast between the two councils is striking. In Dublin, hundreds of thousands of euro are being spent restoring an aristocratic landscape feature. In Thurles, a structure associated with ordinary people surviving the Great Famine was treated as totally expendable. The Marlay Park bill deserves detailed scrutiny. So does every major publicly funded project. But the principle of conserving historic structures should be welcomed.
Led by the denials of elected councillors; mainly Mr Michaél Lowry (Non Party), Mr Sean Ryan (FF) and Mr Seamus Hanafin (FF), together with senior council officials, through wilful ignorance, self-deception, blind persistence and despite knowing better oversaw this reckless destruction. Thus the tragedy in Thurles is that the debate never reached the question of restoration costs.
The Double Ditch was not protected long enough for restoration to become an option. Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown County Council may reasonably be criticised for excessive costs. Tipperary County Council should be criticised for allowing irreplaceable local history to be destroyed.
One council appears willing to spend too much preserving history. The other did too little before all of that history was totally eradicated and lost forever.
Neither approach represents good stewardship of public money or public heritage, and the waste continues without the consent of the Irish taxpayer.
County Tipperary Chamber is calling on every business in Thurles and the surrounding area to complete the Thurles Bypass Business Impact Survey before Friday, 7 August 2026.
For decades, the people and businesses of Thurles have heard proposals, commitments and political assurances regarding essential road infrastructure. However, the town is still waiting for the completed Inner Relief Road and the long-promised Outer Ring Road or Thurles Bypass.
As recently highlighted by Thurles.info, announcements and expressions of political support are not the same as approved funding, a binding construction programme or a completed road.
Thurles businesses need delivery, certainty and measurable progress. Traffic congestion is not merely an inconvenience. It imposes real and continuing costs on local employers. It delays deliveries, wastes staff time, disrupts logistics, restricts customer access and makes it more difficult for businesses to plan, invest and expand. Every delayed journey affects productivity. Every customer discouraged by congestion represents a potential loss to the local economy. Every infrastructure project that remains uncertain can influence future investment and employment decisions.
This aforementioned survey provides businesses with an opportunity to transform those daily experiences into clear, credible and representative evidence. County Tipperary Chamber recently welcomed Thurles native Mr John O’Shaughnessy CDir MBA LL.B (Hons) Dip IOD, Managing Director of Clancy, as its new President. Mr O’Shaughnessy has taken on the presidency at a critical time for business confidence and regional competitiveness. His focus on delivery, effective advocacy and ensuring that the voice of Tipperary business is heard consistently at local and national level is particularly relevant to the infrastructure challenges facing Thurles.
Under his leadership, the Chamber is determined to ensure that the concerns of local businesses are supported by strong evidence and presented directly to Government and other decision-makers.
That effort now requires the support of the Thurles business community. Whether you operate a retail shop, hospitality venue, professional practice, manufacturing company, transport business or family enterprise, your experience matters.
The survey is open to Chamber members and non-members and to businesses of every size and sector.
Government departments require more than general expressions of concern. They require evidence showing how congestion affects operating costs, staffing, deliveries, customer access, competitiveness, investment and future growth.
The greater the response, the stronger the Chamber’s case will be.
This is not about creating another report that sits on a shelf. It is about establishing a compelling business case for action and demonstrating that Thurles cannot continue to compete effectively without modern, dependable transport infrastructure.
A sincere thanks to every business that has already participated. Your time and first-hand knowledge are all helping to build the evidence needed to secure meaningful progress. To those who have not yet responded, please do not assume that another business will speak for you. Every completed survey adds weight, credibility and urgency to this campaign.
Thurles deserves roads, investment and delivery, not more uncertainty or political promises.
€17 Million To Maintain Seized Drug Ship – Handed Over for $1 – Irish Taxpayers Deserve Answers.
The seizure of the MV Matthew was an extraordinary success for Ireland’s law-enforcement and Defence Forces. It prevented approximately 2.2 tonnes of cocaine, valued at more than €157 million, from reaching the streets and dealt a serious blow to international organised crime. The members of Revenue, An Garda Síochána, the Naval Service, Air Corps and Army Ranger Wing involved deserve recognition for an exceptionally difficult and dangerous operation.
But praising that operation does not mean taxpayers must remain silent about what happened afterwards. Revenue has now confirmed that safely managing and maintaining the MV Matthew cost the State approximately €17 million. After almost three years in Cork Harbour, the vessel was transferred to an international shipping company for the nominal consideration of just one US dollar.
Cocaine.
That outcome is extremely difficult for ordinary taxpayers to accept. The issue is not that Revenue seized the ship. It was entirely right to seize a vessel being used for international drug smuggling. Nor can we pretend that the ship could simply have been abandoned, ignored or immediately sold. It was evidence in major criminal proceedings, and the State had obligations relating to security, maintenance, ownership, maritime registration, safety and environmental protection. However, €17 million is an enormous amount of public money. At one point, the vessel was reportedly costing around €120,000 every week to manage and maintain. When expenditure reaches that level, the public is entitled to ask whether every reasonable step was taken to reduce the cost.
Why was Ireland apparently unprepared for the financial consequences of seizing a large commercial vessel? Why was there no established procedure allowing the State to secure the necessary evidence digitally and physically, resolve ownership rapidly and seek an earlier sale, scrappage arrangement or cost-sharing agreement? ►Could international partners, insurers, port authorities or maritime agencies have helped reduce the burden? ► Were alternative berthing, crewing and maintenance arrangements properly examined? ► Who monitored the accumulating expenditure, and at what point was ministerial intervention sought?
These questions do not undermine the criminal investigation. Accountability strengthens public confidence in such operations. Revenue has explained that the disposal process was complicated because the ship had been used for international drug smuggling, nobody claimed ownership, and legal and regulatory requirements had to be resolved with international authorities. Those explanations must be considered fairly. Nevertheless, describing the case as “unprecedented” cannot become a complete answer for every euro spent. Public bodies must be prepared for unprecedented events. Once weekly costs began running into six figures, an urgent cross-government task force should have been examining every lawful option to protect the taxpayer.
The State ultimately spent approximately €17 million maintaining an asset from which it recovered a nominal $1. Although the true benefit of the seizure cannot be measured merely by the ship’s sale price, the cocaine was removed, criminals were imprisoned and organised crime was disrupted; the financial outcome still exposes a serious weakness in how seized maritime assets are handled.
The Government should now publish a transparent breakdown of the expenditure, including berthing, crewing, repairs, insurance, security, legal work and professional fees. The Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee should examine whether the spending represented value for money and whether delays could have been avoided. Most importantly, Ireland needs a permanent protocol for future seizures of ships, aircraft and other high-cost assets. It should establish clear deadlines, ministerial oversight, spending controls, international cooperation arrangements and options for rapid disposal once evidential requirements have been satisfied.
Taxpayers support robust action against drug traffickers. They understand that major operations cost money. What they should not be expected to accept is an open-ended bill without detailed scrutiny. The seizure of the MV Matthew was a victory against organised crime. The €17 million aftermath must now become a lesson in accountability, preparedness and respect for taxpayers’ money; not another example of enormous public expenditure being explained only after the money is gone.
Ireland may be about to create an entirely new residential construction market, but the opportunity is being misunderstood.
In April, the Irish Government announced proposed planning exemptions that would allow a detached auxiliary dwelling of between 32 m² and 45 m² to be built behind an existing home and connected to the main house’s services. The detailed conditions have not yet been finalised, and the regulations still require environmental assessment and Oireachtas approval.
That distinction matters. This is not simply permission to place a larger garden room beside the patio. It is a proposal to create a new home without the conventional planning process.
Homenot a shed!
And a home is not a shed with better finishes. The Government has explicitly stated that all relevant Building Regulations, Building Control requirements and fire-safety rules will continue to apply. Removing planning permission does not remove the obligation to design, construct and certify a safe, energy-efficient dwelling.
That is where the real market disruption begins. Ireland already has a capable garden-room sector supplying offices, gyms, studios and leisure spaces. Many of those companies deliver attractive buildings quickly and efficiently. But a structure intended for occasional use is fundamentally different from a dwelling occupied every day and night. A compliant home must address structure, insulation, ventilation, airtightness, energy performance, drainage, fire safety, radon protection, access and long-term durability. Depending on the final regulatory route, it may also require professional design input, a commencement notice, inspection documentation, energy assessment and completion certification. These obligations are not administrative extras. They are the product.
The commercial risk is obvious. Homeowners may compare two buildings that appear almost identical online: one offered as an inexpensive “garden pod” and another priced as a fully designed and certified dwelling. The cheaper option may win at the kitchen table because the most important differences are hidden inside the floor, walls, roof, ventilation system and compliance file. Those differences may only become visible years later — during a sale, an insurance claim, a mortgage application or an investigation following a fire or structural failure.
That creates four urgent challenges for the industry. ► First, design must become repeatable. The strongest providers will develop standardised systems that can be engineered, energy-modelled and documented once, then adapted responsibly for each site. ► Second, buyers need meaningful protection. A marketing promise or company guarantee is not the same as independent certification, professional indemnity cover and a credible structural warranty. ► Third, contractors need a clear delivery process. Responsibility for design, assigned roles, inspections, testing and handover documentation must be established before work begins — not assembled retrospectively when a customer asks for proof. ► Fourth, the public needs better information. “Planning exempt” must never be allowed to become shorthand for “unregulated.”
There is also confusion around tax. Revenue currently allows up to €14,000 of qualifying Rent-a-Room income to be exempt from Income Tax, PRSI and USC. However, current guidance says a detached self-contained unit does not qualify. The Government has only committed to considering how auxiliary dwellings might interact with the relief. The opportunity remains substantial. Families need flexible accommodation. Adult children need routes to independence. Older homeowners need options. Ireland needs additional housing capacity.
But the winners will not be the businesses that manufacture the cheapest box. They will be the contractors and partners that can deliver a genuine home: designed correctly, built safely, tested properly, certified transparently and supported long after handover. That is the standard serious builders should establish before the first advertising campaign begins.
In this market, compliance will not slow the sale. Compliance will be the sale.
This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptRead More
Privacy & Cookies Policy
Privacy Overview
This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
Recent Comments