Anne Street Wexford Report 1

South East Radio Interview

1The purpose of this document is to respond to comments made by Cllr Leonard Kelly, during an interview with Alan Corcoran on South East Radio on the 8th January 2026 concerning the vacancy/dereliction of the Custom House Quay property in Wexford, owned by Martin Power’s company. Martin Powers' position is that those comments were misleading because they failed to refer to the long-running controversy between Martin Power and Wexford County Council concerning the October 2016 Anne St Review, a matter which had previously been brought to Cllr Kelly’s attention on numerous occasions. This issue was addressed on South East Radio on the 24th June 2026 by Martin Power. See [The Morning Mix – 24th June 2026, 8:55 minutes into the show].

2Martin Power’s company owns the four-storey 5,400 sq ft property, which overlooks the marina on Wexford Quay front. [2026-06-13 – Custom House Quay – Photo]

3In the interview, Cllr Kelly expressed his surprise that this property in such a high-profile location could be left vacant for 15 years.

4Cllr Kelly went on to say that he was going to raise this issue at the Council meeting the following Monday to see if something could be done at Council level to push things along, suggesting the possible use of a CPO.

5Martin Power says that Cllr Kelly failed to say in the interview that there has been an ongoing controversy between Martin Power and Wexford County Council over a Review issued by Wexford County Council on the 10th October 2016 relating to land transactions adjacent to the Custom House Quay property. The Review failed to disclose title deficiencies with the Custom House Quay property.

6Martin Power engaged with Cllr Kelly regarding this controversy by email on the 6th, 9th and 24th September 2019, the 14th October 2019, the 31st January 2020, the 13th January 2022, the 9th July 2022 and the 11th December 2023.

7Moreover, Martin Power informed Cllr Kelly by letter a few days after the interview that what he had said on South East Radio was misleading. Despite this, Cllr Kelly failed to correct what he had said on the radio.

8For the record, the following is a factual summary of the controversy between Martin Power and the Council, which was well known to Cllr Kelly.

Background to the Anne Street Review Controversy

9This document shows that the controversy centred around a Review issued by Wexford County Council on the 10th October 2016 in relation to the assembly of government offices at Anne St, Wexford Town, which Martin Power says was incomplete and inaccurate.

10The executives of Wexford County Council decided in Oct 2016 it was appropriate to release the Anne St Review in the public domain and in those circumstances Martin Power is well entitled to put his reply into the public domain, where the facts can be assessed on their own merits.

11Wexford Borough Council in the late 1980s and early 1990s commenced assembling a large site at Anne St to facilitate new government offices to accommodate the Revenue Commissioners, the Dept of Social Protection and the Vehicle Registration Office.

12A site known as “Murphy’s Yard” was a pivotal plot in the overall site assembly process as was the old County Hotel.

13Shortly after his company purchased the Custom House Quay property in 2002 Martin Power discovered title irregularities with the property and was concerned that these irregularities were in some way connected to the Anne St site assembly.

Site Assembly Concerns Raised in the Dáil by Deputy Joe Higgins on the 13th January 2016

14Martin Power asked then Deputy Joe Higgins TD to examine various documents that had been obtained from Wexford Borough Council and Deputy Higgins formed the view that there were many anomalies and unanswered questions about how the Anne St site was assembled.

15Deputy Higgins subsequently raised these issues on the floor of the Dáil on the 13th January 2016 and asked for the matter to be fully investigated by way of a public enquiry, stating that different parties had been affected by the manner in which the Anne St site was assembled. [Deputy Joe Higgins Address to the Dáil – 13th Jan 2016]

16The Irish Times on the 14th Jan 2016 covered Deputy Joe Higgins Dáil speech made on the 13th Jan 2016. [Irish Times – 14th Jan 2016]

17In reply, then Minister Ann Phelan directed that Wexford County Council as successors to Wexford Borough Council carry out a full investigation.

Wexford County Council Agreed to Investigate the Anne Street Site Assembly

18At a full County Council meeting on the 8th February 2016 the executives agreed to carry out a transparent investigation on how the Anne St site was assembled by Wexford Borough Council. [The-Wexford-Echo-16-Feb-2016]

19The format of the investigation agreed by the executives was that Cllrs. Mary Farrell, Deidre Wadding, Oisin O'Connell and Davy Hynes would act in a liaison capacity between the executives and the group who sought the investigation.

20It was also agreed that all the historical documents held by the Council in relation to the site assembly be made available to the four Councillors through the FOI process and then to the affected parties.

21During April / May 2016 the four Councillors subsequently examined all the files and picked out documents that they thought were relevant.

22As some of the documents selected by the Councillors contained the names of private individuals connected with the site assembly, these individuals were contacted to obtain their consent for the documents to be released without redactions. Martin Power says that this consent was duly provided by the relevant parties.

23A meeting took place on the 4th March 2016, in the County Council offices between the executives, the Councillors and the group seeking the investigation and one part of the site assembly was discussed at length. Martin Power circulated minutes of this meeting to all relevant parties.

24A further meeting took place on the 28th April 2016 to discuss a different part of the site Assembly and nearing the end of that meeting the executives requested that all complaints and specific questions be submitted by the 9th May 2016.

25At the end of the meeting the four nominated Councillors were adamant that a third meeting would take place to review and ask questions about the FOI files, when they became available.

26The executives agreed that there would be a third meeting with the four Councillors and the affected parties to discuss all issues including the FOI files prior to a Review being finalised for the CEO and again Martin Power circulated the minutes of this meeting to the relevant parties.

27Martin Power duly delivered a 29 page document on the 6th May 2016 containing complaints and questions where one question in particular was relevant to Martin Power, relating to Murphy’s Yard, quote: “The executives should explain and provide details of how Mr Corish put together that First Registration application in 1991 and explain how Mr Corish came to own the County Hotel?”

28An email written by Cllr Mary Farrell to an executive on the 5th September 2016 confirms what had been agreed at the meeting on 28th April 2016 i.e. that the FOI files were to be examined prior to the third meeting with the four Councillors and affected parties “as agreed at the last meeting.” [Farrell-to-Executive-5th-6th-Sep-2016]

29However the executives changed that arrangement and said that the FOI files would not be made available until after the Review was presented to the Councillors at the October 2016 Council Meeting.

30This gave rise to Cllr Deidre Wadding on the 11th September 2016 emailing a senior executive in the Council stating the Council must honour their agreement i.e. the group of affected parties should receive the FOI documents, have time to review them, come back to a third meeting with the four Councillors and executives, prior to any Review being presented to the Council. [D-Wadding-to-Council-11-Sep-2016]

31This email from Cllr Wadding demonstrates her frustration at how the executives had changed the agreed investigation process.

32On the 12th September 2016 a public protest took place at the Council offices in Carriglawn demanding that the Anne St files be released immediately.

33On foot of the public protest the Council released the FOI files on the 28th September 2016, but surprisingly said there would be no third meeting to review the FOI files.

34The Wexford Echo on the 4th October 2016 covered the story about the FOI files being released on the 28th September 2016. However, the lack of a third meeting with the executives to discuss the FOI files meant that the group were effectively excluded from the investigation. [The-Wexford-Echo-4-Oct-2016]

Anne Street Review Issued Without Due Process

35Without any further consultation with the group of affected parties re the FOI documents the executives issued a full Review on the site assembly at a full Council meeting on the 10th October 2016. [Council-Report-Anne-St-10-Oct-2016]

36The Review was very controversial and again was covered by the local papers at the time. [Dispute-Over-Report-Wexford-Echo-News-18-Oct-2016]

37Martin Power said the Review was incomplete because it did not answer the question he asked in his submissions to the executives on the 6th May 2016 which was, would the executives explain why and how Raymond Corish & Co Ltd as part of the first registration on Murphy's yard had come to own the Old County Hotel.

38Martin Power said the Review was inaccurate because a CPO issued on the Old County Hotel did not have Raymond Corish & Co as owner of part of the Old County Hotel.

Cllr Willie Fitzharris Issued Motion At Council Meeting RE: Incomplete Review

39Cllr. Willie Fitzharris subsequently brought a motion before the November 2016 council meeting asking the executives to address unanswered questions arising from the Review. [Letter-from-Cllr-Willie-Fitzharris-to-MP-15-Nov-2016]

40Despite the fact that the Review was not adopted by the Councillors on the 14th November 2016 and was classified as “interim” and “ongoing”, the Council sent this Review to the Supreme Court as a finalised Review for a case re: Martin Power’s group of companies.

41The Review makes no reference to “interim” and “ongoing” and accordingly was relied on by the Supreme Court in November 2016 to Martin Power’s disadvantage. The Supreme Court ruled against Martin Power resulting in a liquidator being appointed to his group of companies.

42Arising from the issuing of the incorrect Review by Wexford County Council on the 10th October 2016 Deputy Mick Barry raised the Review in the Dáil on the 16th November 2016 stating that the Review had not answered openly and transparently critical questions about how the Anne St site was assembled. [Dail Speech by Dep. Mick Barry – 16th Nov 2016]

43Deputy Barry went on to say that the then Minister Sean Canney TD must urgently communicate with the Executive of Wexford County Council to ensure that all questions about the site assembly are answered.

44Deputy Barry also asked Minister Sean Canney TD to ensure that the OPW release all their files regarding the site assembly and thereafter meet the parties affected by the site assembly.

45The OPW subsequently released their files in relation to the Anne St site assembly in December 2016.

46On the 7th November 2019 Deputy Peadar Tóibín also raised the incomplete and inaccurate Review in the Dáil and asked that the Council rectify the Review. See Peadar Tóibín address to the Dáil. [Dail Speech by Dep. Peadar Tóibín – 7th Nov 2019]

47In 2019 Martin Power submitted a report to the Executives of Wexford County Council clearly explaining how the October 2016 Review was incomplete and inaccurate. However the Council denied that the Review needed to be corrected.

48The Oct 2016 Report specifically stated that no further investigation was warranted unless substantial evidence was brought forward.

49Martin Power claims that the report he submitted to the Executives in 2019 contained substantial evidence that would justify further investigation and a rectification of the Review.

Additional New Information Obtained in 2021 Confirms that the 2016 Anne Street Review is Incomplete and Inaccurate

50In 2021 Martin Power obtained documents from the Property Registration Authority relating to the First Registration on Murphy’s Yard and when read in conjunction with the FOI documents released by the Council in 2016 it became very clear how the October 2016 Review was incomplete and inaccurate.

51These combined documents show that Raymond E Corish & Co Ltd made a First Registration application on Murphy’s Yard in June 1991 on behalf of the Murphys based on a documentary title.

52In November 1991 the Hylands contracted with the Murphys to purchase Murphy’s Yard.

53In March 1992 Land Registry confirmed the documentary title submitted with the First Registration application in June 1991 was not capable of obtaining a First Registration with a unique folio number.

54On the 30th July 1993 Wexford Borough Council took over the Corish Murphy contract / Murphy Hyland contract.

55In March 1994 solicitors for Raymond E Corish & Co informed the Borough solicitors that the adjoining freehold title, including the rear part of the Old County Hotel, would have to be purchased by Raymond E Corish & Co in order to get a registrable title on Murphy’s Yard and asked if the Borough would fund the cost of acquiring the adjoining freehold title.

56On the 2nd September 1994 the Borough Council paid the solicitors for Corish & Co the funds required to purchase the adjoining freehold which included the rear half of the Old County Hotel.

57From the 2nd September 1994 onwards it was obvious to the Borough Council that Raymond E Corish & Co would be owners of the rear half of the Old County Hotel.

58Despite knowing this, the Borough Council when commencing a CPO process in October 1994 on the Old County Hotel omitted to include Raymond E Corish & Co as part owner of the Old County Hotel.

59This crucial information was excluded from the Review in October 2016 which clearly explains why the Report was incomplete and inaccurate.

60In particular the failure to disclose in the 2016 October Review, the title problems with Murphy’s Yard and why the title was not capable of obtaining a first registration, meant that crucial information was excluded from the Review.

61The information excluded from the Review was relevant to Martin Power as the title on the Custom House property was exactly the same as the title on Murphy’s Yard.

62In other words the Review failed to reveal that the title on Murphy’s Yard and by association the title on the Custom House property had been rejected by Land Registry as insufficient to obtain a freehold title in Land Registry.

63Accordingly Corish & Co in order to get a first registration on Murphy’s Yard had to purchase the adjoining freehold which included the rear half of the old County Hotel, however this crucial information was not disclosed at the time as the subsequent CPO on the old County Hotel when naming the owners excluded Corish & Co.

64Arising from the fact that the CPO on the Old County Hotel excluded Raymond E Corish & Co meant that the CPO process was not properly applied.

65Despite the fact that the Borough Council had agreed to pay Corish & Co to purchase the Freehold of part of the old County Hotel as far back as March 1994, the Review (Page 20) states that when commencing the CPO on the old County Hotel in October 1994, it was unforeseen that Corish & Co were owners of part of the old County Hotel, which is incorrect.

66Furthermore the Review (Page 22) states that no compensation in any way was paid to Mr Corish, either directly or indirectly, which again is totally incorrect as explained above.

67The reason Martin Power asked Deputy Joe Higgins to seek a public enquiry into the Anne St Site assembly in the first place was to establish why there were title irregularities with the Custom House Quay property and despite a subsequent investigation by Wexford County Council in 2016, the title irregularities were not disclosed in the October 2016 Review.

68The Review specifically states at the end of page 23 that no further investigation is warranted unless substantial evidence is brought forward that establishes a prima facie case for abuses by the local authority or its employees.

69Martin Power says the fact that the above key information was not included in the Review does disclose prima facie evidence of abuse by the local authority and its employees.

Former CEO of Wexford County Council Informed About New Information

70Martin Power informed the former CEO Tom Enright about this new information which had been excluded from the October 2016 Anne St Review and accordingly Tom Enright rang Martin Power on the 12th January 2022, to arrange a meeting on the 20th January 2022 to discuss the new information with a view to rectifying the Anne St Review.

71Following this phone call from Tom Enright, Martin Power on the 13th January 2022 wrote to all the Councillors including Cllr Kelly, outlining how the October 2016 Anne St Review was incomplete and inaccurate and asked that they ensure the executives have the report corrected without delay. [Letter to Cllr Kelly – 13th January 2022]

72As stated above, Martin Power met Tom Enright on the 20th January 2022. David Minogue, County Secretary, was also present. This new information was discussed in detail, and Tom Enright agreed to have the report re-examined.

73The details of this new information and how the 2016 Anne St Review was incomplete and inaccurate was submitted to David Minogue in the presence of Eimear Kennedy in the Council Offices on the 2nd February 2022 for circulation to the Executives. [Cover Page – Analysis of Report Issued by WCC – 1st February 2022]

74Having submitted the new information to David Minogue on the 2nd February 2022 and having got no reply, Martin Power rang David Minogue on the 3rd May 2022. Martin Power was very surprised to hear from David Minogue, that this new information had not been passed to Tom Enright. Accordingly, Martin Power wrote to David Minogue on the 4th May 2022 and as a result of this, Tom Enright on the 5th May 2022 appointed Liz Hore to take responsibility for rectifying the Anne St Review. [Email-Correspondence-With-David-Minogue-&-Liz-Hore – May 2022]

75Martin Power and another party attended a meeting with Liz Hore, Anthony Bailey and Anita McLoughlin on the 31st May 2022, which lasted for over three hours and concerned the Anne St Review. [Minutes – WCC Meeting – 31 May 2022]

76This was followed by a further meeting on the 7th June 2022 with Liz Hore and Anita McLoughlin regarding the Anne St Review. [Minutes – WCC Meeting – 7 June 2022]

77Issues relating to proposed developments at Park/Carcur were also discussed at both meetings. On the 8th June 2022, Martin Power sent Liz Hore an email regarding the Anne St Review. [Letter MP to WCC – 8th June 2022]

78On the 9th June 2022, Martin Power sent Elizabeth Hore detailed notes of what was discussed at the meetings of the 31st May and 7th June 2022. [Email-to-Elizabeth-Hore-re-Notes-from-WCC-Meeting – 9th June 2022]

79In a replying email dated 13th June 2022, Liz Hore, while disagreeing with Martin Power’s interpretation of what was said at both meetings, acknowledged that due to the volume of points and the nature of the claims raised, a response would be provided by Wexford County Council. However, no response was issued. [Liz-Hore-Email-to-MP-13-June-2022]

Council Executives’ Failure to Rectify the Anne Street Report Notified to All Councillors

80Dissatisfied with the Council executives’ failure to have the 2016 Anne St Review rectified in 2022, Martin Power wrote to all the Councillors on the 9th July 2022, including that of Cllr Kelly. [Cllr Kelly Letter 9th July 2022]

Cllr Kelly Was on Notice of the Anne Street Controversy Before and After the South East Radio Interview

81Before the South East Radio interview on the 8th January 2026, Cllr Kelly was fully aware of Martin Power’s ongoing controversy with Wexford County Council over the October 2016 Anne St Review on foot of numerous emails sent to him by Martin Power since 2019.

82Arising from Cllr Kelly’s interview on South East Radio on the 8th January 2026, Martin Power wrote to Cllr Kelly three days later on the 11th January 2026 stating that what he had said in the interview on the 8th January 2026 was completely inaccurate and misleading. [Kelly Letter 11th Jan 2026]

83In that correspondence of the 11th January 2026, Martin Power reminded Cllr Kelly about the numerous emails he had sent him in relation to the controversy with the Council in relation to the October 2016 report and enclosed relevant attachments to show that various meetings took place in 2022 with five separate executives for the sole purpose of rectifying the Anne St Review, however Cllr Kelly completely ignored that letter and never sought to rectify his errors on the radio.

84In the letter to Cllr Kelly on the 11th January 2026, Martin Power also included a letter that the new CEO Eddie Taaffe sent to Cllr Tom Forde on the 10th July 2024, which among other things addressed the Anne St Review. [E-Taaffe-to-T-Forde-Anne-St.-10-July-2024]

85At the request of Martin Power, Cllr Tom Forde asked Eddie Taaffe CEO of Wexford County Council on the 8th July 2024 to address questions relating to developments at Park/Carcur and provide an update on progress in rectifying the Anne St Review. [E-Taaffe-to-T-Forde-Anne-St.-10-July-2024]

CEO Eddie Taaffe’s Statement Incorrectly Claims That No New Information About the Anne Street Review was Submitted to Wexford County Council

86The last paragraph of Eddie Taaffe’s letter of the 10th July 2024 says that no new or additional information about the Anne St Review had been brought to the Council's attention which completely disregards Martin Power’s meeting with Tom Enright and David Minogue on the 20th January 2022 and the new information given to David Minogue by Martin Power on the 2nd February 2022.

87This comment by Eddie Taaffe also ignores the meeting with Liz Hore, Anthony Bailey and Anita McLoughlin on the 31st May 2022, the subsequent meeting with Liz Hore and Anita McLoughlin on the 7th June 2022, the letter addressed to Liz Hore on the 8th June 2022, and the correspondence received from Liz Hore on the 13th June 2022.

88That statement by Eddie Taaffe in his letter of the 10th July 2024 is an attempt to deny that new or additional information about the Anne St Review was in fact presented to five separate senior executives of Wexford County Council.

89The question arising is, why is the CEO Eddie Taaffe denying that new or additional information was submitted to Wexford County Council in 2022 and discussed with five separate senior executives at the time.

90A further detailed report will follow setting out why Martin Power says the October 2016 Anne St Review is incomplete and inaccurate. That report will rely on the Planning Files, FOI Files, OPW Files and Land Registry Files.

• The Planning Files
• The FOI Files
• The OPW Files
• The Land Registry Files