Submission re St Edmundsbury and Finnstown Castle
We wish to object most strongly to the proposed rezoning of the St Edmundsbury and Finnstown Castle lands.
Given the reality of climate change, with no stronger evidence than that of the current Summer, we would argue that it is increasingly important that biodiversity, sustainability, the preservation of wetlands and other dimensions of climate change should be considered as an essential link in the chain of planning processes. It is in the earliest stages of planning that principles relating to climate change and biodiversity can be given proper recognition. Conversely, by the time planning gets down to the level of dealing with specific housing applications, it can be too late for giving appropriate weight to climate change and biodiversity.
Lucan has long been associated with what we could call green spaces where there is a rich preponderance of flora and fauna. Like many other areas, these are under threat from urbanisation and climate change. A recent report commissioned for Lucan Tidy Towns (S J Barron, 2021, Biodiversity Action Plan for the Griffeen River, Lucan, Co Dublin) documents the current state of biodiversity and threats with particular reference to Vesey Park. While Vesey Park itself is not the subject of the proposed Variation in SDCC Development Plan, it happens to lie in the vicinity of both the St Edmundsbury and Finnstown Castle zones which are the subject of this submission. Thus, many of Barron’s findings would be indicative of the current biodiversity state of the two zones. It is abundantly clear from the report that the proposed rezonings are very much going to exacerbate the environmental challenges identified by Barron.
One of the more crucial functions of the St Edmundsbury site became readily visible in the period at the beginning of the year when we were subject to sustained rainfall over and above what would normally be expected; this excess rainfall would be most likely as a consequence of climate change and probably will recur. The function we are referring to is that of the area as a wetland. The large amounts of excess water held by the land would certainly have helped to keep the Liffey from more severe flooding downstream. Building houses on a substantial proportion of the site will clearly have the effect of making downstream flooding significantly more likely. The loss of wetlands in other parts of SDCC has been a direct cause of flooding in those parts. As stated above, climate change and its effects are not going to disappear for the foreseeable future and so it would be foolhardy to further reduce the availability of wetland.
If Lucan is to retain its essence and identity as an area of natural beauty and green spaces as well as being an area for housing, an appropriate balance has to be struck between maintaining the traditional green aspect and meeting housing requirements. Currently the greater Lucan area is carrying a very heavy load of housing development relative to other parts of SDCC and with more areas already earmarked for further housing. The suggestion is that we should now take stock of where the future balance for the Lucan area should be between the green aspect and addressing housing needs.
While it is undoubtedly the case that housing needs are currently of major national importance, sufficient perhaps to be designated a crisis, it is also the case that environmental concerns are also a matter of major importance. Under a forthcoming EU Nature Restoration Law, the State is required to produce a Nature Restoration Plan. As reported by the Irish Times (9 March 2026), a report submitted to Government on views gathered to inform this Plan declares “an overwhelming sense of loss at the disappearance of nature.” Thus, it is not a question of one pressing issue superseding another but rather of finding a suitable balance between the two.
The proposed rezoning plans relate to future housing needs. We have been frequently informed by both local Councillors and the County Council itself that there is already plenty of land zoned for residential development. When looking at the latest lands proposed for rezoning and taking account of the rezoning process, the planning application process, the very likely judicial review process, and the development process itself, it will be at least ten years before new residences are seen on these lands. This suggests that, before taking hasty decisions on the rezoning of particular lands, time is available to take a more considered approach to how the proposed rezoning might meet future needs and, indeed, to examine what those needs actually are. In other words, given the timescale and the multiplicity of other considerations for the Lucan area, rather than just these specific proposed variations to the SDCC Development Plan which only deal with rezonings, we should be examining a wider set of variations that would see whatever rezonings are on the table as part of a more integrated plan.
Historically, the St Edmundsbury lands have been the scene of sustained planning battles as developers have long recognised the financial gains to be made by building residences on this prime location. Fortunately, the County Council consistently rejected these applications recognising the environmental value and integrity of this high-amenity area. It is now totally incongruous to find SDCC itself doing a volte face on the issue and re-activating what in effect was the most recent planning application for these lands and which was rejected by the Council. The only visible change now proposed is the formal development of a minimal section of the long-promised Liffey Valley Park. It is our belief that the promise of delivering this section of the linear park is meaningless without a solid commitment to the complete park and an appreciation of the environmental importance of, and commitment to, the existing riverside woodlands as a whole.
The river Liffey and the Dublin Road constitute natural boundaries to the St Edmundsbury lands. If the Dublin Road boundary is breached as proposed in the Variations, it will provide a precedent for breaches elsewhere. Again, an overall systems approach is required to do justice to the integrity of the site.
Transport and traffic congestion are uppermost in their minds of virtually all citizens living in the Lucan area. Of course, these issues are not unique to Lucan but, positioned as we are close to the M50 toll bridge, we are subject to a disproportionate amount of traffic that is in effect bypassing the toll and which is adding to the traffic which is locally generated. Any scheme for new housing which is located close to the village arteries will only exacerbate the existing problems. At some point, there will have to be a plan that looks at transport and mitigating traffic congestion in Lucan in a wider context, perhaps even taking a “systems thinking” approach to the issue. Such an approach was taken in the OECD 2022 study “Redesigning Ireland’s Transport for Net Zero: Towards Systems that Work for People and the Planet.”
Services such as water, sewage, and energy (whether electricity, oil, gas, or renewables) are essential for any new housing development. We are told by Uisce Eireann that water supplies to the conurbation that is Dublin are close enough to what the system is capable of providing. Similarly, because Lucan is regarded as a significant hub for Data Centres, as an area it is in receipt of more than its fair share of electricity supply. The flaw in the document setting out Proposed Variations in the County Development Plan is that it only quantifies the additional service requirements; it does not set out how those requirements are going to be delivered. Again, it would make a lot more sense overall to integrate plans for specific increases in the provision of services with plans for increased housing.
Conclusion
We are very much opposed to the proposed Variations to SDCC Development Plan because of the lack of linked up thinking on the consequences of the proposed variations. Given the timescale involved, we would prefer to see a broader plan that would give appropriate recognition to environmental issues as well as housing needs. Such a plan should incorporate a systems-thinking approach (OECD 2022).
Brian and Hanneke Foley
5 August 2026