Proposed Material Alterations to Proposed Variation No. 2 to the South Dublin County Development Plan 2022-2028
Dear all,
The consultation process has proven to be hugely difficult for people to access and to make easy comments in relation to multiple proposals. The format is not geared to assist the democratic process, rather to hinder it.
That said, I wish to add the following brief comments to my earlier submission on the proposals, with respect to the material alterations made. They fall under St Edmundsbury for the simple reason that like a lot of people I don't have an extra half an hour to put each comment into a box. Surely with AI all the commentary can be summarised from one document.
St Edmundsbury
I support the material amendment not to rezone the lands. This is needed for biodiversity, heritage, open space and other reasons not least its integral setting adjacent to the already protected Special Amenity Area lands. It is incredulous that the CEO would still recommend housing here on the basis of planning need with so much already rezoned.
Finnstown
I support the material amendment not to rezone the lands to protect biodiversity and retain open space.
Coldcut
Again I support the material amendment not to rezone the lands.
Foxhunter
In the regrettable absence of any stronger motions, I support the Amendment (Ref 14) to ensure access or permeability are properly considered during the process. I don't believe SDCC has any good track record in this regard, or that this motion means anything significant, but given it's all we have I support its retention,
Adamstown SDZ West
I support the proposal to have DART+ South West operational before additional development proceeds. However these lands should not have been rezoned without further guarantees on facilities and infrastructure as the growth of other areas already zoned with impact on the final capacity along the rail line making it difficult to sustain sufficient public transport provision. There is also no integrated capacity for buses or playing pitches or childcare etc, basically leaving it up to future promises that in the past have been shown to be empty in terms of delivery by agencies.
Long-Term Adamstown SDA
I support the Special Local Objectives passed in conjunction with this rezoning. But again, I do not believe that the lands should have been rezoned without ring-fenced guarantees on infrastructure and transport capacity, similar to other Adamstown area proposals. A nightmare of traffic, parking wars, inadequate infrastructure waiting to happen, even if a desired playing pitch area is installed adjacent to Lucan Sarsfields, which would make planning sense.
Citywest
I support the SLOs now that this material alteration has been made. However I wish to reiterate that the lands should not have been rezoned as the proposal is totally unstainable and foists more housing and limited amenities on the local communities.