Thurles Inner Relief Road: New Tender Documents Raise Serious Questions Over Timelines, Political Claims and the Destruction of the Great Famine Double Ditch.
The publication of new tender documents for the Thurles Inner Relief Road has been presented as a significant milestone for a long-delayed project. In one sense, it is. After years of promises, updates and political announcements, Tipperary County Council has now gone to the market seeking engineering technical consultancy services to progress the scheme. But the detail contained in the newly published tender raises serious questions about the true timeline for delivery, the accuracy of previous political claims, and the destruction of the historic Great Famine “Double Ditch”, to facilitate a road that still appears to be years away from completion.
The official eTenders notice, published in July 2026, confirms that Tipperary County Council is seeking a multi-disciplinary technical consultancy team for the Thurles Inner Relief Road. The tender describes the work as including a review of existing documents, completion of outstanding deliverables for Stages 3 and 4, and preparation of deliverables through Stages 5 to 7. Crucially, the official notice gives the contract duration as 50 months.
That single figure changes the entire public understanding of this project. The proposed road is not simply waiting for diggers to arrive. Tipperary County Council’s own January 2026 management report described the scheme as an approximately 1.1km local link between the N62 and Mill Road, including a signalised junction at Slievenamon Road, a new priority junction with Mill Road, five intermediate access junctions, public lighting, flood alleviation works and a 50-metre tied bowstring arch crossing of the River Suir.
This is a substantial piece of infrastructure, and the new tender shows that major consultancy, design, approval, procurement, construction supervision, handover and defects processes still remain. The public therefore deserves honesty about the timeline. That honesty is especially important because previous political messaging now appears highly questionable. In November 2025, press reported that Deputy Mr Ryan O’Meara said Minister for Transport Mr Darragh O’Brien expected construction to commence on the Thurles Inner Relief Road the following year;2026. The same report quoted Deputy O’Meara as saying that Department of Transport officials had advised him the project should be completed and opened in approximately 24 months from then.
How does that claim stand beside a 50-month consultancy contract published in July 2026? If the tender process for the consultancy team is only now underway, and if that consultancy contract itself is expected to run for approximately 50 months, then completion by late 2027 is no longer credible. It is not enough to simply welcome “progress” while ignoring the contradiction. Deputy O’Meara should clarify exactly what he was told, by whom, and on what basis the public was led to believe that the road could be completed and opened in roughly two years.
This matters because Thurles people have heard promises about this project for far too long. Planning permission for the road was granted as far back as 2014, according to earlier press and local radio reporting. More than a decade later, the project is still moving through consultancy and design stages. Local frustration is understandable. But frustration should not be used as a cover for spin. Nor should the traffic needs of Thurles be used to brush aside the heritage loss already caused by this scheme.
The planned route has been linked for years by local campaigners and heritage advocates to the Great Famine “Double Ditch” at Mill Road. In 2020, Thurles.info publicly asked whether the planned Inner Relief Road would negatively affect what it described as the 1846 Thurles Double Ditch, a right of way and Mass Path associated locally with famine-era history. The warnings did not stop there. In February 2021, Thurles.info published commentary on an Archaeological Impact Statement, arguing that the proposed road would most likely impinge on the Great Famine Double Ditch in two locations. In March 2021, the same local outlet reported that Cllr Jim Ryan had confirmed the Double Ditch was to be destroyed to construct the Inner Relief Road. This was despite phone denials by Councillor Mr Micheál Lowry of the “Lowry Team”, who readers will remember inquired as to my standing in the community. {☺☺☺}
These are not minor matters. A famine-era pathway, Mass Path or heritage landscape is not just an inconvenience on a drawing. It is part of the physical memory of a town and its people. If warnings were made before destruction occurred, then the question must be asked clearly: why was the Double Ditch not protected, preserved, recorded more fully, or incorporated into the design?
Was every alternative route examined? Was the public given a full explanation? Was the heritage value properly weighed against the road design? Who decided that destruction was acceptable? And why is Thurles now being asked to accept the loss of a historic feature while the road itself may not be complete until around 2030 or later?
Nobody disputes that Thurles needs traffic solutions. The town has long suffered from congestion, poor circulation and pressure on its historic centre. A second river crossing and an improved link between Slievenamon Road and Mill Road may well bring benefits. But infrastructure should not be delivered through vague timelines, political overstatement and irreversible heritage loss. The publication of the new tender documents should therefore be treated as more than a procedural step. It should be treated as a moment of accountability.
Tipperary County Council should publish a clear and realistic delivery programme for the Thurles Inner Relief Road. Deputy Ryan O’Meara should explain the gap between his previously reported 24-month completion claim and the newly published 50-month consultancy timeline. The Council should also account for the treatment of the Great Famine Double Ditch, including what warnings were received, what assessments were carried out, and why destruction was permitted.
Thurles deserves roads. But it also deserves truth. It deserves progress, but not spin. And it deserves development that respects the town’s history rather than erasing it first and explaining later.
Irish Rail and Córas Iompair Éireann have brought High Court proceedings against Tipperary County Council in a dispute over a train signalling mast near the old Cahir railway station.
Irish Rail
The case centres on whether the mast, located about 130 metres from the old Cahir Rail Station, should be treated as exempted development or whether it affects the setting of a protected structure. The station, described in reports as a Gothic revival railway building dating from the 1850s, is at the heart of the planning disagreement.
Tipperary County Council served an enforcement notice in June 2026 under the Planning and Development Act 2000. That notice requires Irish Rail to cease using and remove the signalling mast by September 2026. Irish Rail is now asking the High Court to quash the council’s decision.
Irish Rail argues that the local authority made errors “in law and in fact” when deciding the mast was not exempted development. It also disputes the council’s view of the “curtilage”; the land or setting attached to a protected structure and says the mast is too far from the station building to fall within that protected area.
The rail operator further says it has installed more than 700 similar masts around Ireland without complaint from other planning authorities. It claims the protected status at the Cahir location now applies only to the station building, rather than other nearby railway structures previously listed in older development plans.
The council’s position is that the mast impacts the character and setting of the historic station. The matter is expected to return before the High Court on July 20th 2026.
Ireland’s latest greenhouse gas figures bring a welcome headline: emissions fell again in 2025. But behind that progress lies a much harder truth. The country is still nowhere near the pace of change required to meet its legally binding climate targets, and the next few years are likely to be far more difficult than the last few.
The Environmental Protection Agency’s provisional figures show that Ireland’s greenhouse gas emissions decreased by 2.2% in 2025, equivalent to 1.2 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. It was the fourth year in a row that emissions fell. Reductions were recorded across all main sectors, with the biggest falls in energy industries, buildings, industry and transport.
That is encouraging. It shows that emissions can fall while Ireland’s economy and population continue to grow. It also suggests that policy, investment and cleaner technology are beginning to have an effect.
But the scale of the challenge remains stark. Ireland’s national climate law requires a 51% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared with 2018 levels. By 2025, emissions had fallen by only 14.5% when land use, land-use change and forestry are included. The EPA has warned that emissions must now fall by more than 10% every year to 2030 if Ireland is to meet its national climate target.
That is the central difficulty. A 2.2% annual fall is progress, but it is not enough. Ireland is moving in the right direction, yet not nearly fast enough. The easier gains may also be running out. The energy sector has delivered major reductions, helped by renewable electricity, less fossil-fuel generation and changes in the power system. Emissions from power generation and large industrial companies fell by 5.5% in 2025, according to the EPA. But future reductions will increasingly depend on harder-to-change parts of daily life: how people travel, how homes are heated, how farms produce food, how industry uses energy, and how quickly infrastructure can be built.
Transport is one of the biggest warning signs. Emissions fell in 2025, helped by more biofuel use and rising electricity consumption in road transport. But transport still exceeded its sectoral ceiling. This points to a deeper problem: Ireland is making improvements, but car dependency, slow public transport delivery, rising travel demand and freight emissions continue to make transport one of the most difficult sectors to decarbonise.
Industry faces similar pressure. Industrial emissions fell in 2025, but the sector still overshot its ceiling. Some reductions can come from fuel switching or lower fossil-fuel use, but long-term progress will require deeper changes in manufacturing, cement production, industrial heat and investment in cleaner processes. That will not be simple, cheap or quick.
Agriculture remains perhaps the most politically sensitive challenge. The 2025 fall in agricultural emissions was very small. Lower cattle numbers helped, but this was offset by increased fertiliser use and higher milk production. Agriculture is central to rural Ireland and the national economy, but it is also a major source of methane and nitrous oxide. Reducing these emissions at the speed required will involve difficult choices about land use, herd size, fertiliser, food production and farm incomes.
Buildings offer another mixed picture. Emissions fell in 2025, helped by a warmer winter and reduced fossil-fuel use. Residential emissions are now much lower than in previous decades. But warmer weather is not a climate policy. Lasting reductions will require faster retrofitting, more heat pumps, improved energy efficiency, skilled workers and financial supports that make upgrades realistic for households and businesses.
Ireland also faces a serious EU compliance challenge. Under the EU Effort Sharing Regulation, Ireland must reduce emissions in sectors such as agriculture, transport, buildings, waste and smaller industry by 42% by 2030compared with 2005. The EPA says Ireland is projected to miss that target, with a maximum projected reduction of 23% by 2030 even under a scenario with additional measures.
The cost of missing targets could be significant. Reuters reported that Ireland’s fiscal and climate watchdogs warned the State could face EU compliance costs ranging from €8 billion to €26 billion by 2030, if emissions-reduction plans are not delivered. That means failure would not simply be environmental. It could become a major financial burden on the public purse. There is a risk that one positive year creates a false sense of security. Falling emissions are welcome, but climate targets are not judged by headlines. They are judged by cumulative reductions, carbon budgets and legally binding limits. Ireland may be provisionally under its first carbon budget, but future budgets will be tighter and harder to meet.
The real test now is delivery. Targets have been set. Carbon budgets have been agreed. Sectoral ceilings have been created. The legal framework is in place. What Ireland needs next is faster implementation; more renewable power, stronger grids, cleaner transport, warmer homes, lower-emission farming, industrial investment and public policies that make low-carbon choices affordable and practical.
Ireland’s emissions are falling. That matters. But the road to 2030 is getting steeper, not easier.The 2025 figures should be welcomed, but they should not be mistaken for success. They are a reminder that progress has begun, and that the hardest work is still ahead.
Thurles has great history, strong community spirit and huge potential, but like many towns, it can sometimes look tired because of small things left unattended.
Grass and weeds growing out of pavements. Untidy frontage outside homes and businesses. Litter caught along kerbs. Faded and decaying walls, neglected planters, shabby entrances and streets waiting for overstretched council workers to get to every corner.
Maybe the answer is not to wait. Maybe the answer is for each of us to look after the few metres outside our own front door. That is the idea that comes to mind behind the notion of a Thurles Front Door Challenge. For one day, or better still one full week, householders, businesses, schools, clubs, residents’ groups and volunteers could be encouraged to clean, weed, sweep, wash, paint, plant and tidy the visible area outside their own homes, shops, estates and community buildings.
The idea is simple: If every person improves the small patch in front of them, the whole town improves. This should not be about blame. Some people are elderly, unwell, busy, struggling or unable to manage outdoor work. In those cases, neighbours, clubs and volunteers could step in and help. It should be a positive community effort, practical, friendly and visible.
A newly planted broken tree on Dublin Road out of Thurles, left for the past number of weeks unattended.
Tipperary already has a strong base to build from. Tipperary County Council has supported Tidy Towns and community groups through grant schemes, including support for local enhancement works, and the Thurles Municipal District Tidy Towns grant scheme is aimed at recognised community and Tidy Towns groups visibly working to improve their local area. The National Spring Clean campaign also provides free clean-up kits to registered groups, including items such as bags, gloves, high-vis vests and posters. A Thurles Front Door Challenge could work alongside those existing supports, but with a sharper local focus: the front of every house, shop, street, estate and approach road.
There should also be rewards. Local businesses, event organisers and community sponsors could offer incentives such as free or reduced entry to music events, youth discos, local concerts, cinema nights or family activities for those who actively take part. A volunteer wristband or certificate could give participants a discount in participating cafés, shops or takeaways for the chosen week.
There could also be prizes for: Best Improved Street. Best Improved Estate. Best Shopfront. Best Youth Team. Best School Effort. Best Before-and-After Transformation. Best Pollinator-Friendly Frontage. Best Community Volunteer Group. Best Overall Thurles Front Door Challenge Area
Cash prizes, paint vouchers, garden-centre vouchers, planters, tools, event tickets or small street-improvement grants could all make a real difference.
A special part of the challenge should also involve Thurles Municipal District Council officials organising a review of public signs around the town; especially the enormous amount of signs that remain turned the wrong way, left facing inwards, are damaged, are hidden, or are no longer clearly visible due to overgrown hedging etc. A town can look neglected when signage is crooked, confusing or pointing nowhere. Correcting these small details would immediately improve the appearance, safety and welcome of Thurles.
The council workforce cannot be expected to be outside every door every day. But every door has someone who can care about the space just in front of them.
This is not a grand or complicated idea. It is a simple one. Sweep the path. Pull the weeds. Wash the gate. Paint the wall. Clean the window. Tidy the planter. Fix the sign. Help the neighbour.
Improve your street. That is how pride spreads. One front door at a time. The Thurles Front Door Challenge — your patch, your pride, your town.
Thurles, Co. Tipperary did not decline overnight. It has been weakened over decades by the loss of major employers, the failure to replace them at scale, and town-centre decisions that have made Liberty Square less convenient for the very businesses it is supposed to support.
Over the past 50 years, Thurles, has lost some of the employers that once gave the town real economic strength. The Sugar Factory closure remains one of the deepest blows in local memory. Later came further losses: GMX, BSN Medical, Erin Foods and others. In the Seanad in 2007, the pattern was described clearly; since the loss of the Sugar Factory, Thurles had suffered repeated job losses in Barlow, BSN Medical, GMX and Erin Foods.
These were not minor losses. BSN Medical announced in 2006 that it would cease manufacturing in Thurles, with 80 jobs to go. Erin Foods, which had operated in Thurles for 46 years, was then marked for closure with the loss of 95 jobs. The closure of GMX / Moulinex had already removed around 230 jobs from the town. When these losses are added to the Sugar Factory and smaller vanished industries, the picture is obvious: Thurles lost a serious employment base and never got it back.
Yes, there have been minor replacements announced and some investment. Dew Valley Foods, Lidl, smaller enterprise supports, the university presence and the ThurlesShopping Centre have all brought activity. But they have not replaced the scale or quality of what was lost. A town cannot lose major factories and long-standing employers and then be told that scattered retail jobs, short-term construction work and small-scale schemes are the same thing. They are not.
[Song hereunder ,“Rust & Rain”, is AI-generated entirely by Dallas Ray Little(operating under the label Crusty Records)]
Even An Taoiseach Mr Micheál Martin appeared to acknowledge this failure in Dáil Éireann on June 10th 2026, when he said he had “often thought Thurles would have done better because of its location” and noted that not everywhere near the motorway had received the same degree of foreign direct investment. That single comment says a great deal. For decades, Thurles was told that its central location, rail access and proximity to major routes should be an advantage. Yet the town watched major employers disappear, while replacement investment went elsewhere. If even the Taoiseach is surprised that Thurles has not benefited properly from its location, then local people are entitled to ask why successive governments, state agencies and elected representatives allowed that failure to continue for so long.
Tipperary County Council’s own Thurles Local Area Plan confirms the weakness of the employment base. It states that Thurles has a relatively low jobs ratio of 1.01 compared with Clonmel at 1.39 and Nenagh at 1.22. It also records that just under half of resident workers are employed in Thurles, while many others work elsewhere in Tipperary or outside the county. That is not the profile of a town that has been properly protected or rebuilt after decades of industrial loss.
The same plan says Thurles is a “Key Town” and speaks of supporting employment, prosperity, regeneration and revitalisation. But people in Thurles have heard plans, strategies and promises for years. What they can see with their own eyes is different; empty premises, weakened footfall, businesses struggling, and employment lands that have not delivered the kind of jobs once provided by the town’s former industrial base.
Liberty Square is the clearest example of the problem. Tipperary County Council’s Phase 2 public realm proposal includes wider footpaths, raised crossings, road-layout changes, a one-way system on Cuchulain Road, and the relocation of 12 parking bays from the central island car park. The Council presents this as enhancement. Many traders see it differently. For a rural market town, convenient short-stay parking is not a luxury; it is part of how the town trades.
The long-awaited Thurles bypass is another example of how the town has been pushed down the road for decades. The need is obvious; heavy traffic and HGVs continue to pass through the heart of Thurles, including Liberty Square, while the town centre is simultaneously expected to become a more attractive public realm. Those two aims are in conflict. Press reported in November 2025 that the “long awaited and badly needed” bypass was back on the Government agenda, noting that it would ease congestion in the heart of the town where heavy goods vehicles regularly clog Liberty Square. Yet Tipperary County Council’s own 2026 budget material stated that while a route had been selected and a reserved corridor was in place, the Council would continue lobbying for the project to be included in the National Development Plan. By March 2026, the project had only received a €50,000 allocation to progress early design work with TII. After so many years, that is not delivery; it is another promise pushed into the future.
Long awaited Thurles bypass selected route/reserved corridor still only receives early-stage funding/progression in 2026
A town centre like Thurles depends on easy access. People call in to collect prescriptions, go to the post office, visit the butcher, chemist, café, solicitor, barber, newsagent or bank, and then move on. If parking is removed, made awkward, pushed away, or controlled in a way that does not suit shoppers, people change habits. They go where parking is free, plentiful and easy. In Thurles, that increasingly means the shopping centre or edge-of-town retail or indeed another nearby town.
The pull of the shopping centre is not imaginary. Thurles Shopping Centre is marketed as having more than 55,000 visitors per week and 550 free multi-storey parking spaces. That is a huge advantage over Liberty Square with its parking charges. When the Council reduces or reconfigures central parking while the shopping centre offers hundreds of free spaces, it should surprise nobody that trade drifts away from the historic core.
Parking charges resulted in the relocation of the post office, seen as yet another major blow. In 2019, An Post moved from Liberty Square to Thurles Shopping Centre. Local concern at the time was that the move would reduce footfall in the town centre. An Post said the old building was not viable and that the new location would provide improved services, but the result for Liberty Square was still the loss of a key daily footfall generator.
This is the core issue; decisions may be justified one by one, but their combined effect has damaged the heart of Thurles. One decision removes jobs, while another fails to replace them. Another moves a key service while another reduces convenient parking and then another produces a plan promising regeneration at some later date. Over time, the town centre is weakened not by one single act, but by a long chain of decisions that fail to protect how a real town works.
It would be unfair to claim that every closure was caused by councillors, the Council or TII. Companies close for many reasons: restructuring, costs, competition, building condition, online shopping and changing consumer behaviour. But it is entirely fair to say that successive politicians, councillors, agencies and planners have failed to secure a proper replacement employment base for Thurles and have failed to protect Liberty Square as a practical commercial centre.
The people of Thurles do not need more glossy language about regeneration. They need jobs, occupied buildings, realistic parking, fair access, active streets and a town centre that serves local traders as well as public-realm theory. A square can look tidier on a drawing and still fail commercially. A plan can sound modern and still damage small businesses. A town can be called a “Key Town” in official documents and still be treated like an afterthought in practice.
Thurles deserves better than managed decline. It deserves leadership that understands the town’s history, its losses, its trading patterns and its people. After 50 years of industrial closures, weak replacement employment and the hollowing-out of Liberty Square, the question is not whether Thurles has been let down. The question is who is finally going to take responsibility for reversing the damage.
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