Congratulations to Thurles Councillor Mr Jim Ryan, who once again used Tipp FM local radio, this morning, to highlight the deplorable condition of the River Suir, as it passes through Thurles town centre.
Concerns about this important local waterway have reportedly been raised repeatedly since approximately November 2013. Yet, after almost 13 years, residents are still waiting for the sustained maintenance, environmental protection and accountability that the river urgently requires.
River Suir, for years, remains totally blocked by a fallen tree, reed and other vegetation.
Photographs and the short video hereunder, recorded yesterday, once again provide further evidence of the current situation. Shopping trolleys, bottles, discarded clothing and other litter, remain clearly visible, both in the riverbed and around affected sections of the river bank, totallydevoid of litter bins.
Years of excessive vegetation, severely restricted water flow and apparently uncontrolled effluent entering the river, provide stark evidence of prolonged and inexcusable neglect.
Short video hereunder, taken yesterday showing conditions recorded along the River Suir, with no action having taken place whatsoever, since contacted by EPA.
Thurles.Info has forwarded communications about the river to Tipperary County Council. The Environmental Protection Agency has also requested a written response from the said Council, outlining any action already taken or planned. According to the latest published update, that response remains awaited.
Despite the EPA’s intervention and continuing public complaints, no visible attempt had been made, up to yesterday, to remove the abandoned trolleys, bottles, clothing or other accumulated waste shown in the accompanying footage. This is not merely an appearance issue. The River Suir is an important natural habitat, public amenity and part of Thurles’s identity. Local people are entitled to know who is responsible, what work will be undertaken and when it will begin. Councillor Mr Jim Ryan deserves credit for continuing to raise the matter.
What Thurles now needs is a prompt, transparent and effective response from the responsible authorities.
When Plastic And Aluminium Become One Recycling Problem.
I want to sincerely thank Minister of State Mr Alan Dillon TD (through his Private Secretary Ms Michaela Sullivan), for taking the time to provide such a detailed and informative response. Unfortunately, many TDs these days fail to reply to constituents’ questions at all, so a meaningful response deserves to be publicly acknowledged.
Although Ireland’s Deposit Return Scheme covers PET* bottles and aluminium or steel cans from 150ml to 3 litres, the Department has confirmed that this container is excluded because it is considered hybrid packaging, owing to its high aluminium-to-PET ratio.
The photograph below shows a 200ml BuzzBallz container made from a combination of plastic and aluminium.
Ireland’s new litter menace – same rejected by Reverse Vending Machines, since no Re-turn logo.
*PET stands for polyethylene terephthalate, a widely used plastic. It is a lightweight, durable plastic commonly used to make drinks bottles and is normally identified by the number 1 recycling symbol.
That creates a serious problem; the container may contaminate the aluminium recycling stream, while its metal content could also damage equipment used to process plastic. In other words, it is designed in a way that makes effective recycling extremely difficult.
The new EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation is intended to address packaging like this. It requires packaging placed on the EU market to be recyclable, with reconcilability requirements beginning in 2030. Hopefully, this will bring an end to poorly designed hybrid containers that fall outside the deposit scheme and are too easily discarded on our streets and in our countryside.
The Minister’s office also explained that Re-turn works with local authorities, the LGMA and the Waste Enforcement Regional Lead Authorities to identify and investigate breaches of the Deposit Return Scheme rules. According to the Department, hundreds of inspections have taken place since the transition period ended, and 80% of the non-compliant stakeholders identified are now compliant or working towards compliance. Reports from members of the public remain an important part of that enforcement effort.
However, the wider question remains; why should any drinks container be allowed onto the Irish market, if it cannot be efficiently collected and recycled?
Packaging should be designed for a circular economy from the beginning, not become someone else’s environmental problem at the end.
We learned last week that the Data Protection Commission (DPC) has fined the HSE €645,000, following serious failures in the care of confidential medical records.
The investigation began after two data breaches were reported in 2023. People had gained unauthorised access to paper medical records stored in the disused St Loman’s psychiatric hospital in Mullingar and St Conal’s Hospital in Letterkenny. Videos of the records were subsequently posted on social media.
When inspectors examined 12 HSE storage sites, they found records in appalling conditions. Documents were stored in disused bathrooms, cubicles, a shipping container inside a turf shed and derelict buildings. Some records were damaged by mould, water, rubble and animal droppings. The DPC also found that records had been retained longer than necessary and that some breaches had not been reported promptly to either the regulator or the people/patients affected.
The DPC imposed four fines totalling €645,000 and ordered the HSE to audit its storage facilities, remove records from unsuitable locations and introduce a proper system for tracking and managing paper records. The HSE’s previous similar data-protection failures were treated as an aggravating factor.
But who will really pay this fine? The HSE is funded mainly with public money. Therefore, the €645,000 will not come from the pockets of the officials responsible. It will come from resources that could otherwise have been used for patients, staff and health services. Once the fine has been confirmed by a court and collected, the DPC must transfer the money to the Government’s Central Fund, namely the Irish Exchequer. It does not go to the patients whose records were mishandled, and it does not remain with the DPC. The result is that one taxpayer-funded public body pays another part of the State. The money leaves the HSE’s budget and returns to the general Exchequer.
The HSE will then find itself €645,000 short in its future dealings with patients and support services, unless it can absorb the loss elsewhere. If it seeks additional funding, that money will again have to come from the taxpayer. The HSE cannot simply demand the fine back, but future governments may provide it with increased funding through the normal budget process.
Is this not ridiculous? The HSE must certainly be held accountable for the disgraceful treatment of sensitive medical records. Strong corrective action, public accountability and consequences for those responsible are entirely justified. However, taking money from the health service, placing it in the Exchequer and potentially providing more taxpayers’ money to the HSE later looks like public money being moved in a circle.
Meanwhile, patients may face the real cost through reduced resources or delayed services, although they did nothing wrong. The people directly responsible may suffer no personal financial consequence, while taxpayers effectively pay the penalty.
The fine sends a public message, but it raises a serious question; is moving €645,000 of taxpayers’ money from one State account to another really the best way to hold a public body accountable?
Meaningful accountability should correct the failures without making patients and ordinary taxpayers pay for the same institutional mistakes again.
The Environmental Protection Agency has confirmed that it is awaiting a written response from Tipperary County Council before deciding whether further EPA action is warranted concerning continuing complaints about the River Suir.
In correspondence received following a further complaint submitted on August 27th, 2026, the EPA’s Office of Environmental Enforcement stated:
Dear Mr Willoughby, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) acknowledges receipt on 27/08/2026 of your further correspondence below relating to the issue referenced above. Our Ref: COM021813.
As previously advised, with respect to the scope of your concerns as listed below, we note that the majority of the concerns and questions raised relate to matters that fall within the remit and functions of Tipperary County Council as the competent authority for these matters.
We have requested a written response from the Council on any actions taken or planned on this matter. Until we have reviewed the response from Tipperary County Council, we will then assess any appropriate actions that may be required by the EPA and communicate our decision to you.
We trust this outlines the approach undertaken by the EPA with regard to this matter and, as advised, we will contact you again in due course.
Kind regards, Mary Murphy (Programme Officer, Office of Environmental Enforcement, Wexford.)
Effluent flowing into River Suir, at Thurles Town centre. Pic: G. Willoughby.
The reply is important because it confirms that the complaint remains under consideration. It also places Tipperary County Council firmly at the centre of the response: the EPA has asked the Council to account in writing for what it has done and what it proposes to do.
However, the correspondence provides no deadline for the Council’s response, no timetable for the EPA’s assessment and no indication of what evidence or remedial programme has been requested. “In due course” is not an adequate substitute for a transparent schedule, particularly after concerns about pollution, excessive vegetation, restricted flow and the condition of the river have been raised repeatedly for more than a decade.
Another River Suir organisation proposed. Meanwhile, NoreVision has been consulting communities, landowners, river users and businesses about establishing a River Suir Trust. The proposed organisation would seek to improve the river’s ecological health, develop practical projects and increase public understanding of the river ecosystem. Consultation invitations concerning the proposed trust were publicly circulated in May 2026 through local community channels, including Holycross/Ballycahill.
Suir Riverbed, Thurles town centre. Pic: G. Willoughby.
A properly constituted trust, supported by qualified scientific staff and sustainable funding, could provide valuable coordination, education and practical restoration work. It might also offer communities a stronger voice when dealing with public authorities.
Nevertheless, a trust remains a proposal until its governance, funding, staffing and work programme are published. Its success should eventually be judged by measurable ecological improvements, not by the number of consultations held, partnerships announced or aspirations expressed.
Most importantly, a community trust must supplement statutory action, not become a substitute for it. Volunteers and charitable organisations cannot be expected to assume the legal responsibilities of local authorities, regulators, public utilities or other State agencies.
“Save Our Suir” also established.
A separate community initiative, “Save Our Suir”, emerged following a public meeting held at Cahir House Hotel on August 26th. Contemporary notices from the Cashel, Golden and Tipperary Anglers Association and local social-media accounts confirm that the meeting took place, with a packed attendance.
This mobilisation demonstrates the depth of public concern. It could also help maintain pressure for disclosure, investigation and action. However, the appearance of several overlapping initiatives now creates a risk of fragmented effort unless their respective objectives and responsibilities are clearly defined.
A static River Suir, Thurles, Town Centre. Pic: G. Willoughby.
The River Suir does not require another layer of meetings in which every organisation participates, but no single body accepts responsibility for delivery.
Responsibilities must not become blurred. It is also important to describe the agencies’ roles accurately. The Local Authority Waters Programme was officially renamed the River Basin Management Service in July 2026. It works on behalf of Ireland’s 31 local authorities, providing catchment science, community engagement, funding and coordination. The renaming did not create a new enforcement authority or change the organisation’s underlying purpose. The official announcement expressly states that its purpose, services and commitments remain the same.
The EPA coordinates national water-quality monitoring, assessment and reporting. It also regulates EPA-licensed activities and oversees local-authority environmental performance. Tipperary County Council remains the competent authority for many local pollution, drainage, maintenance and enforcement matters, the position now restated in the EPA’s reply.
Inland Fisheries Ireland has responsibilities relating to fisheries protection, habitat and fish passage. Its national barrier programme has funded five projects in County Tipperary, but the published list does not by itself establish that these projects will resolve the particular problems reported in the River Suir at Thurles. Cooperation among these bodies is necessary and essential, but cooperation without named responsibility, deadlines and published outcomes can too easily become a mechanism for delay.
The public now needs answers. The EPA’s intervention is welcome, as are the River Suir Trust proposal and the formation of Save Our Suir. Yet none of these developments, by itself, amounts to river restoration.
After some 13 years of documented local complaints and warnings, the public should now be given:
Tipperary County Council’s complete written response to the EPA;
A published scientific assessment of the affected sections of the river;
Identification and investigation of pollution and nutrient sources;
Relevant water-quality, flow, oxygen and ecological-monitoring results;
A costed programme of remedial and maintenance work;
A clear allocation of responsibility among the Council and State agencies;
Environmental assessment of any proposed vegetation or obstruction removal;
Firm commencement, completion and public-reporting dates.
The proposed River Suir Trust and Save Our Suir may become constructive forces. They should be supported where their work is evidence-based, transparent and properly coordinated.
But the critical question remains unchanged:-What practical work will now be undertaken, who will be responsible for it, and by what date will the public see measurable improvement in the River Suir?
New safety regulations for e-scooters will take effect on Friday next, September 4th 2026.
Under the regulations, anyone using an e-scooter in a public place must:
Wear a helmet.
Wear high-visibility clothing.
Continue to comply with the existing minimum age of 16.
Follow existing rules governing speed, equipment, passengers and where e-scooters may be used.
The measures follow a rise in serious injuries involving e-scooters, particularly head injuries among children. Gardaí will be able to identify breaches of the protective-equipment rules through roadside enforcement.
A €100 fixed-charge fine for offences including riding without a helmet is expected to be introduced separately in the coming weeks. It is therefore important not to describe that fine as taking effect on September 4th next.
The Government also plans to raise the minimum riding age from 16 years to 18 years. That change is not yet in force because it must first complete the European Union’s Technical Regulation Information System process. The process can take up to 12 weeks, with implementation expected before the end of 2026.
Charges associated with seized e-scooters are also due to increase in early October. Further proposals under consideration to possibly include insurance, licensing and registration requirements.
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