Objection to New Artificial Turf Replacing Common Use Grassland
OBJECTION: To a new artificial surface at Greenhills Park, proposed to replace the majority of the west field of grassland, which is in common use of local people as well as local and migrating wildlife. For more than 60 years, this area has survived as open grassland for the well being of all. Replacing it with an exclusive development to the detriment of the environment and especially the locals living directly adjacent, appears short-sighted in the extreme. For example:
There are already 11 other artificial surface pitches in the immediate locality, including Sean Walsh Park (~39-61% utilized), Tallaght Leisure Center (4xPitches, utilized ~28-45%), Astropark Tallaght (multiple pitches, ~26-47% utilized), Spawell (~32-53% utilized), Killinarden (2 Pitches, ~19-31%), St Mary's etc etc. As you can see, utilization rates across all these available resources come to only 35-45% and serves as an existing, under-utilized, resource.
As many others have pointed out, astroturf/artificial surfaces cause profound and irreparable damage to the local environment. It beggars belief that SDCC is now considering installing a new artificial surface, when most of the rest of the developed world is phasing these out, if not issuing outright bans.
A phased restriction on the sale and installation of polymeric microplastic infill (like rubber crumb) is coming into effect in 2031 under European regulations, though existing fields with these materials are not affected. Some municipalities and states in the US and UK are implementing partial bans on non-functional or specific types of turf.
Specific Bans and Restrictions
European Microplastic Ban (2031):
A ban on the sale of polymeric infill (EPDM, TPE, SBR) for artificial turf football pitches will come into force in 2031, targeting microplastic pollution.
US Municipalities and States:
Boston: Enacted a ban or severe restrictions on new turf installations in 2022.
California, Connecticut, and Nevada: Have restrictions or bans on new artificial turf installations, including a ban on "nonfunctional" turf by 2026 in Nevada.
New York: Placed a moratorium on new artificial turf installations.
Scottish Football League (SPFL):
A proposal to ban artificial pitches from the top professional league starting in 2026 was under consideration.
Reasons for Bans and Restrictions
Microplastic Pollution:
The use of artificial turf infill contributes to microplastic pollution in the environment.
PFAS Chemicals:
Artificial turf can contain PFAS, toxic chemicals linked to health issues like cancers and reproductive problems.
Environmental Impact:
Concerns exist about the harm synthetic turf can cause to local ecosystems compared to biodiverse, native plant landscapes.
Player Safety:
Some NFL players have expressed concerns about injuries, particularly on specific types of artificial turf. I imagine this is not different for football or rugby.
The Local Residents were NOT informed in a timely manner of this initiative, whereas it appears other interested parties were informed. This inequity is unacceptable.
Local residents are not just 'NIMBYs' as one submission claimed. They are real people. They live 12 meters from the 'Field' as the locals know it by. They are parents, siblings, kids, grandkids, who have called Greenhills home for many, many decades. They would be significantly harmed by this project, as would be known to all those involved in proposing this project. And when I say HARMED, I mean from noise pollution, light pollution, airborne toxins/microplastics, decreased property values and increased cost for home insurance.
Under the Part 8 Process, Health and Safety is also a major consideration for this project. At a public meeting last night, held in Tallaght, apparently a fireman and local resident pointed out the project's inability to accommodate emergency vehicles. Obviously, SDCC is obligated to make this part of the record and take these submissions seriously. Given its location within a residential area and park, all areas of the astroturf and buildings must be immediately accessible. I would encourage the SDCC to make public official documentation confirming that the fire brigade has had input to this process and any concerns have been addressed. The Fire Brigade's professional and official opinion on this matter should be published.
Despite what other submissions/reports have mentioned, this is a RESIDENTIAL area. There is one local shopping area across James's Rd from the west end of the field (Greenhills Park) and a community college bordered by a wooded area. Claiming this is mixed use residential/commercial is misleading.
My understanding of the next steps in the process include a Manager's Report taking into account resident's concerns and other public comments to be presented to the elected Councillors. Hopefully, this process will become fully transparent, and not railroaded through by a few football fanatics who may sit down and blast their support while trying to deafen out those who will be immediately impacted and while ignoring the massive negative impact this plastic stuff will leave behind, long after they've finished their football games. I would encourage the SDCC to please reach out to those neighbors who live in the area, especially those who will be immediately impacted. Their voices should be heard for a local project of this scale. Note: the current process likely disenfranchises elderly locals and if I'm being direct, it seems like the SDCC and football club think this is an opportune time to push one past the more elderly in the adjacent community. I hope this is not true.
Finally, so-called 'improvements' of this nature should not be seen as part and parcel of living in an urban environment, no more than vandalism or destroying our environment should be. Not everyone lives for football. There are plenty of other activities this money could be spent upon. Some that could even benefit our environment and locals while increasing engagement of young people away from the digital world. The idea this project can deliver lasting benefits to the community is not borne out in the real world, especially when this pitch has to be removed in the future. There is no critical shortfall of sports infrastructure in South Dublin. The so-called promotion of health, well-being, and social cohesion clearly misses multiple points I and others have already made. The comments that there is 'no real likelihood of significant environmental effects' is not only taken out of context, it also flies in the face of science!
Observations
OBJECTION: To a new artificial surface at Greenhills Park, proposed to replace the majority of the west field of grassland, which is in common use of local people as well as local and migrating wildlife. For more than 60 years, this area has survived as open grassland for the well being of all. Replacing it with an exclusive development to the detriment of the environment and especially the locals living directly adjacent, appears short-sighted in the extreme. For example:
Specific Bans and Restrictions
A ban on the sale of polymeric infill (EPDM, TPE, SBR) for artificial turf football pitches will come into force in 2031, targeting microplastic pollution.
A proposal to ban artificial pitches from the top professional league starting in 2026 was under consideration.
The use of artificial turf infill contributes to microplastic pollution in the environment.
Artificial turf can contain PFAS, toxic chemicals linked to health issues like cancers and reproductive problems.
Concerns exist about the harm synthetic turf can cause to local ecosystems compared to biodiverse, native plant landscapes.
Some NFL players have expressed concerns about injuries, particularly on specific types of artificial turf. I imagine this is not different for football or rugby.
My understanding of the next steps in the process include a Manager's Report taking into account resident's concerns and other public comments to be presented to the elected Councillors. Hopefully, this process will become fully transparent, and not railroaded through by a few football fanatics who may sit down and blast their support while trying to deafen out those who will be immediately impacted and while ignoring the massive negative impact this plastic stuff will leave behind, long after they've finished their football games. I would encourage the SDCC to please reach out to those neighbors who live in the area, especially those who will be immediately impacted. Their voices should be heard for a local project of this scale. Note: the current process likely disenfranchises elderly locals and if I'm being direct, it seems like the SDCC and football club think this is an opportune time to push one past the more elderly in the adjacent community. I hope this is not true.
Finally, so-called 'improvements' of this nature should not be seen as part and parcel of living in an urban environment, no more than vandalism or destroying our environment should be. Not everyone lives for football. There are plenty of other activities this money could be spent upon. Some that could even benefit our environment and locals while increasing engagement of young people away from the digital world. The idea this project can deliver lasting benefits to the community is not borne out in the real world, especially when this pitch has to be removed in the future. There is no critical shortfall of sports infrastructure in South Dublin. The so-called promotion of health, well-being, and social cohesion clearly misses multiple points I and others have already made. The comments that there is 'no real likelihood of significant environmental effects' is not only taken out of context, it also flies in the face of science!