Proposed amendment to Section 2.2.6 – Residential Car Parking Standards

Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing as a resident of an already completed and occupied part of the Clonburris SDZ to request a review and amendment of Section 2.2.6 – Car Parking Standards, particularly the maximum parking standards applying to family houses and duplexes.

I make this submission not on the basis of a hypothetical future concern, but as a resident already living in a completed and occupied part of Clonburris.

My three-bedroom home has been delivered with one parking space. The consequences of restricted residential parking can therefore already be observed in the occupied community.

I support the objective of encouraging sustainable transport and reducing unnecessary car use. However, there is an important distinction between reducing car dependency and simply reducing the number of places where residents are permitted to park cars they still need.

A parking restriction is effective as a sustainable transport measure only where residents have realistic alternatives.

Section 2.2.6 itself recognises this principle. Among the matters to be considered when accepting reduced parking provision are proximity to railway stations, proximity to services meeting day-to-day needs, levels of car dependency and the ability to fulfil multiple needs in a single journey. SDCC

The problem is that parts of Clonburris are now occupied while the wider community and its supporting services are still being developed.

Residents must live in the Clonburris that exists today, not the completed Clonburris envisaged for the future.

For many everyday activities, a car remains a practical necessity. Where grocery shopping, pharmacy and other everyday services are not conveniently available within the immediate neighbourhood, simply providing fewer parking spaces does not eliminate residents' need for cars. Instead, it transfers parking demand from individual properties to a limited supply of communal and on-street spaces.

Indeed, in July 2026 the National Transport Authority announced consultation on proposed new and enhanced bus services intended to support the growing Clonburris community, including improved coverage of currently underserved areas. SDCC This demonstrates why parking standards should be reviewed against the transport and service infrastructure actually available to residents at the time their homes are occupied.

I understand that a standard of 1.25 or 1.5 parking spaces does not mean that an individual dwelling physically receives a fraction of a parking space. It is an aggregate development standard.

However, that mathematical approach can disguise the practical experience at household level.

For example, a development of 100 three-bedroom homes at 1.25 spaces per dwelling may provide 125 spaces overall. This does not mean every family has 1.25 usable spaces. It can mean that households receive one allocated space while the remaining demand is expected to be absorbed by a comparatively small pool of communal or on-street spaces.

That approach should be reconsidered where actual experience demonstrates persistent oversubscription.

I also request that SDCC reconsider the substantial distinction between parking standards for a three-bedroom duplex and a three-bedroom house.

A three-bedroom duplex can accommodate a family of a similar size to a three-bedroom house. The fact that one dwelling is constructed as a duplex does not, by itself, establish that the household will have materially lower transport or car-parking requirements.

Parking requirements should therefore be based primarily on likely household occupancy, location, actual accessibility and demonstrated transport alternatives, rather than dwelling classification alone.

Most importantly, SDCC now has something that was not available when the Planning Scheme was prepared: real-world evidence from occupied Clonburris developments.

Before further phases are permitted with similarly restricted parking, I request that SDCC undertake an actual parking survey of the completed and occupied phases.

This should include overnight parking occupancy; the number of vehicles parked outside allocated spaces; demand for communal and visitor spaces; inappropriate parking caused by lack of capacity; EV-space utilisation; household car ownership; and the availability, frequency and practical usefulness of public transport and day-to-day services.

The results should be used to determine whether the assumptions underpinning the existing maximum standards remain appropriate.

The shortage of parking is not merely an inconvenience. It is already contributing to conflict over unallocated spaces.

I have personally experienced this.

After I parked in what I understand to be an unallocated on-street parking space, another resident claimed that the space effectively belonged to him because of its location outside his home and threatened to “smash my face.”

There have also been issues concerning the claiming or use of an EV parking/charging space.

I recognise that threatening behaviour is the responsibility of the individual concerned and is a separate matter for An Garda Síochána where appropriate. I am not suggesting that SDCC is responsible for an individual's behaviour.

However, the incident demonstrates the type of conflict that can arise when parking demand materially exceeds convenient parking supply and residents begin treating communal or unallocated spaces as extensions of their individual properties.

This should be taken seriously when considering whether the same parking model should continue to be applied throughout future phases of Clonburris.

I therefore request that SDCC review Section 2.2.6 and consider amending the Planning Scheme so that:

Three-bedroom houses and three-bedroom duplexes should normally be capable of being provided with up to two residential parking spaces per dwelling, particularly where the development is not yet served by the full range of walking-distance services and high-quality public transport envisaged for the completed SDZ.

Where a developer proposes fewer spaces, the reduction should be supported by evidence demonstrating that the transport infrastructure and day-to-day services necessary to support lower car ownership already exist and are operational at the time residents occupy the homes.

Existing occupied developments within Clonburris should also be surveyed to establish actual household car ownership and parking demand before equivalent or lower parking provision is approved in subsequent phases.

The Council should additionally review whether the current distinction between equivalent-bedroom houses and duplexes remains justified by evidence of actual parking demand.

The purpose of this amendment would not be to encourage car dependency. It would ensure that sustainable transport policy is implemented in step with the delivery of the infrastructure and services that make reduced car ownership realistically achievable.

Clonburris is intended to become a sustainable community. That objective should mean providing residents with genuine alternatives to private cars — not simply restricting parking before those alternatives are fully available.

I respectfully ask South Dublin County Council to take the experience of residents already living within the SDZ into consideration when reviewing the Planning Scheme. The occupied developments now provide an opportunity to assess actual car ownership, parking demand, availability of local services and public transport accessibility against the assumptions on which the original parking standards were based.
I would welcome an evidence-based review of these standards before the same approach is applied to further phases of residential development.

Thank you for considering my submission.
Kind regards,
Polina Sulialina
Resident of Clonburris SDZ