SOCIETY FOR OLD LUCAN: COMMITTEE SUBMISSION02 / 03 / 2022
Part 8 for Proposed Works at Lucan Village Green and Main Street
[Note: I was unable to use the map feature on the submission portal but our submission relates to Lucan village]
On behalf of Helen Farrell, Elaine Hurley, Paul Butler, Jonathan Cully, Darren Tully & Lesley Jenkins Blairsdale, who form the Committee of Society for Old Lucan, 2021-22.
There are many positives about these proposals and we wish to focus on these first. We are delighted that SDCC wishes to invest and develop Lucan village both in terms of improvements for residents of the Lucan area, and in terms of Lucan as a destination town in the near future.
With Lucan’s rich archaeology, history and heritage, there is much that can be capitalised on for these plans and in future development in the area, but in a way that improves and conserves the historic features and streetscapes.
Overall, the project will greatly improve accessibility for all, for pedestrians using and navigating the village, whether people are using mobility devices or are parents using buggies for young children.
The improvement to the service infrastructure in the village green area, especially by putting services underground, is a great improvement on the current situation. This will have additional benefits to creating a village accessible to all and will have the added benefit of improving the visual impact of the village.
Providing more benches and street furniture will have a positive impact on the use of the village generally.
The plans (subject to some changes) will have the potential to bring more people (both from the surrounding areas, and domestic tourists) into the village, which will benefit village traders & businesses, and will increase the positive awareness of Lucan as a quality destination town.
The plans for the demesne car-park are also seen as very positive and well thought-out.
While some of the debate online has focused on parking issues, we felt that there are other potential drawbacks to aspects of the current proposal that would benefit from adjustments.
We felt that the remodelling of the Village Green area, particularly along the NE / Eastern sides, may result in a potential safety issue to park users, by removing the existing robust stone wall; park users will have little between them and fast-moving traffic. The lack of a barrier on the NE limits of the park could also prove a safety issue for parents with young children, as no barrier will exist between park users and the traffic. The project plans mention that it is expected that this area will still be a “very trafficked area” so consideration should be given to maximise the safety of all park users by implementing some form of barrier between pedestrians/park visitors and the busy traffic. This may also result in increased sound pollution to park users from the traffic. Currently, the plans seem to remove those barriers and create a near-seamless environment between Village Green and roads.
The proposals crucially do nothing to disincentivise motorists who descend Chapel Hill and cross Lucan Bridge in order to avoid M50 tolls. A daily car-user commuting from North to South along the M50 could expect to pay over €1,300 per annum, so the savings for “rat running” through Lucan village is very great. This has been repeatedly identified as a major issue (by the local community, including in the 2007 consultation process that resulted in the excellent guidance document “Lucan / Leamhcán: Village Design Statement (2007) by SDCC / Heritage Council”) that impacts negatively on the quality of life and the environment of the village and surrounding areas, on the free-flow of traffic and use of the village. More use of this 2007 guidance document should have been made in relation to the current proposals overall, as the consultation process was a far more wide-ranging one than recent village consultations in 2021.
Traffic calming measures seem to be largely absent from the current plans, with the potential for more pedestrian and traffic interactions likely if the plans are implemented in their current form. This potential safety aspect should be reassessed.
Crucially, we feel that without a small, dedicated, paid car-park in Lucan village (along the lines of the one off Leixlip Main Street that operates very effectively and smoothly) the continued viability of local businesses, and increased pressure on car-parking spaces, is under threat. SDCC should do everything in their power to acquire a suitable site for a paid car-park as soon as possible, to service both local customers, and the increased tourist footfall expected in the coming years, as plans for Lucan as a destination town are developed. Without such a dedicated, central car-park, the aspirations of a car-free user-base of Lucan visitors is nearly totally aspirational and not practical, and plans to have a thriving village will fail. Lucan, as an area, has been mainly built in a way that necessitates car-ownership for the majority of residents, and the expectation that they will stop using cars to make dedicated, single-purpose visits to Lucan village using public transport or on foot / bicycle is unrealistic.
Another major issue to the success of the plans is that there seems to be no provision for public toilets. These public facilities are desperately needed, (again, identified in the 2007 consultation process) for hygiene and sanitary purposes, even prior to planning an increase in visitor numbers to the village. Currently, parts of the Village Green and Weir areas are frequently used as open-air toilets, which is completely unacceptable from a public health situation. It is unacceptable to expect local cafes to provide access to toilets to non-paying customers, nor do they. The self-cleansing toilet units found in most small towns around Ireland (such as those provided in historic Blessington Town, Co. Wicklow, see image below from Google Streetview) can be designed to minimise impact on the historic streetscape.
There appears to be somewhat of a lack of detail about increased public lighting of the Village Green and Weir areas and provision of vandal-proof, comprehensive CCTV in both areas. Without the provision of both of these aspects, we feel there is the potential for both areas to become unsafe especially after dark, and attract anti-social behaviour and littering.
The removal of so many healthy trees in the Village Green area should be questioned; could these not be retained and incorporated into the design?
Finally, we are concerned with the proposed removal of the section of wall around the Village Green. If the original stonework is not reused (and machine-cut stone is used instead) it will detract from the character of the Griffeen Bridge and whole area. As the 2007 “Lucan / Leamhcán: a Village Design Statement” recommended, the design guidelines for this area should “Conserve the character of the area [...].
We also felt that there are some areas that are missed opportunities in the proposals.
More emphasis generally throughout the proposals should have been put on the feedback from the 2007 consultation process which resulted in the very comprehensive “Lucan /Leamhcán: a village design statement” with specific design guidelines for each part of Lucan village.
The project plans make no mention of heritage signage and information at the Village Green, which is a central point for visitors, and again, was identified as being a design guideline for development by the 2007 report.
No reference to Leamhcán’s etymological origins is capitalised on in the plans; namely the disputed “land abounding in mallows” vs. “place of the elms” meaning. Currently, on Logainm.ie (created by The Placenames Branch of The Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media) there is no definitive etymological definition on Leamhcán as a placename, and both potential meanings hold equal weight academically. Surely the planting in the park should incorporate both of these plants, to reflect our local heritage? Both elms and mallows grow wild in the Lucan area, with mallows growing naturally in the graveyard at the medieval Church of the Blessed Virgin in the centre of Lucan village, just off the Village Green.
The Weir Area should refer to the historic name “Long Walk” as this was its name in the 18th century as evidenced on Scalé’s historic maps, viewable on SDCC Source.
There appears to be no mention in the plans of cleaning up of the Weir area that is needed (invasive Himalayan Balm seems to be growing on the banks of the Liffey, and other cleanup needs to be done of trees and detritus washed down the river during floods etc.) and invasive plants (Buddleia) are currently growing and very established on the structure of the Liffey Bridge, that may cause serious damage to the structure. In the 2007 report mentioned above, it mentioned that “Lucan Bridge would benefit from a restoration programme” and yet, there has been no significant improvements to the structure since that time. The report also suggested that “There is an opportunity to enhance Lucan Bridge with appropriate floodlighting.”
No mention of small play-spaces for young children, which could be sensitively incorporated into small areas of the Weir Area and/or Village Green, both of which would be very welcome aspects to use of these public areas by all ages of the local community.
The missing 18th century, decorated Coade stone plaque inset into the stonework on the Griffeen bridge, which is visible from the village green, should be replaced to complete what was formerly a matching pair of plaques, that faced each other across the Griffeen.
Observations
SOCIETY FOR OLD LUCAN: COMMITTEE SUBMISSION 02 / 03 / 2022
Part 8 for Proposed Works at Lucan Village Green and Main Street
[Note: I was unable to use the map feature on the submission portal but our submission relates to Lucan village]
On behalf of Helen Farrell, Elaine Hurley, Paul Butler, Jonathan Cully, Darren Tully & Lesley Jenkins Blairsdale, who form the Committee of Society for Old Lucan, 2021-22.
There are many positives about these proposals and we wish to focus on these first. We are delighted that SDCC wishes to invest and develop Lucan village both in terms of improvements for residents of the Lucan area, and in terms of Lucan as a destination town in the near future.
With Lucan’s rich archaeology, history and heritage, there is much that can be capitalised on for these plans and in future development in the area, but in a way that improves and conserves the historic features and streetscapes.
Overall, the project will greatly improve accessibility for all, for pedestrians using and navigating the village, whether people are using mobility devices or are parents using buggies for young children.
The improvement to the service infrastructure in the village green area, especially by putting services underground, is a great improvement on the current situation. This will have additional benefits to creating a village accessible to all and will have the added benefit of improving the visual impact of the village.
Providing more benches and street furniture will have a positive impact on the use of the village generally.
The plans (subject to some changes) will have the potential to bring more people (both from the surrounding areas, and domestic tourists) into the village, which will benefit village traders & businesses, and will increase the positive awareness of Lucan as a quality destination town.
The plans for the demesne car-park are also seen as very positive and well thought-out.
While some of the debate online has focused on parking issues, we felt that there are other potential drawbacks to aspects of the current proposal that would benefit from adjustments.
We felt that the remodelling of the Village Green area, particularly along the NE / Eastern sides, may result in a potential safety issue to park users, by removing the existing robust stone wall; park users will have little between them and fast-moving traffic. The lack of a barrier on the NE limits of the park could also prove a safety issue for parents with young children, as no barrier will exist between park users and the traffic. The project plans mention that it is expected that this area will still be a “very trafficked area” so consideration should be given to maximise the safety of all park users by implementing some form of barrier between pedestrians/park visitors and the busy traffic. This may also result in increased sound pollution to park users from the traffic. Currently, the plans seem to remove those barriers and create a near-seamless environment between Village Green and roads.
The proposals crucially do nothing to disincentivise motorists who descend Chapel Hill and cross Lucan Bridge in order to avoid M50 tolls. A daily car-user commuting from North to South along the M50 could expect to pay over €1,300 per annum, so the savings for “rat running” through Lucan village is very great. This has been repeatedly identified as a major issue (by the local community, including in the 2007 consultation process that resulted in the excellent guidance document “Lucan / Leamhcán: Village Design Statement (2007) by SDCC / Heritage Council”) that impacts negatively on the quality of life and the environment of the village and surrounding areas, on the free-flow of traffic and use of the village. More use of this 2007 guidance document should have been made in relation to the current proposals overall, as the consultation process was a far more wide-ranging one than recent village consultations in 2021.
Traffic calming measures seem to be largely absent from the current plans, with the potential for more pedestrian and traffic interactions likely if the plans are implemented in their current form. This potential safety aspect should be reassessed.
Crucially, we feel that without a small, dedicated, paid car-park in Lucan village (along the lines of the one off Leixlip Main Street that operates very effectively and smoothly) the continued viability of local businesses, and increased pressure on car-parking spaces, is under threat. SDCC should do everything in their power to acquire a suitable site for a paid car-park as soon as possible, to service both local customers, and the increased tourist footfall expected in the coming years, as plans for Lucan as a destination town are developed. Without such a dedicated, central car-park, the aspirations of a car-free user-base of Lucan visitors is nearly totally aspirational and not practical, and plans to have a thriving village will fail. Lucan, as an area, has been mainly built in a way that necessitates car-ownership for the majority of residents, and the expectation that they will stop using cars to make dedicated, single-purpose visits to Lucan village using public transport or on foot / bicycle is unrealistic.
Another major issue to the success of the plans is that there seems to be no provision for public toilets. These public facilities are desperately needed, (again, identified in the 2007 consultation process) for hygiene and sanitary purposes, even prior to planning an increase in visitor numbers to the village. Currently, parts of the Village Green and Weir areas are frequently used as open-air toilets, which is completely unacceptable from a public health situation. It is unacceptable to expect local cafes to provide access to toilets to non-paying customers, nor do they. The self-cleansing toilet units found in most small towns around Ireland (such as those provided in historic Blessington Town, Co. Wicklow, see image below from Google Streetview) can be designed to minimise impact on the historic streetscape.
There appears to be somewhat of a lack of detail about increased public lighting of the Village Green and Weir areas and provision of vandal-proof, comprehensive CCTV in both areas. Without the provision of both of these aspects, we feel there is the potential for both areas to become unsafe especially after dark, and attract anti-social behaviour and littering.
The removal of so many healthy trees in the Village Green area should be questioned; could these not be retained and incorporated into the design?
Finally, we are concerned with the proposed removal of the section of wall around the Village Green. If the original stonework is not reused (and machine-cut stone is used instead) it will detract from the character of the Griffeen Bridge and whole area. As the 2007 “Lucan / Leamhcán: a Village Design Statement” recommended, the design guidelines for this area should “Conserve the character of the area [...].
We also felt that there are some areas that are missed opportunities in the proposals.
More emphasis generally throughout the proposals should have been put on the feedback from the 2007 consultation process which resulted in the very comprehensive “Lucan /Leamhcán: a village design statement” with specific design guidelines for each part of Lucan village.
The project plans make no mention of heritage signage and information at the Village Green, which is a central point for visitors, and again, was identified as being a design guideline for development by the 2007 report.
No reference to Leamhcán’s etymological origins is capitalised on in the plans; namely the disputed “land abounding in mallows” vs. “place of the elms” meaning. Currently, on Logainm.ie (created by The Placenames Branch of The Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media) there is no definitive etymological definition on Leamhcán as a placename, and both potential meanings hold equal weight academically. Surely the planting in the park should incorporate both of these plants, to reflect our local heritage? Both elms and mallows grow wild in the Lucan area, with mallows growing naturally in the graveyard at the medieval Church of the Blessed Virgin in the centre of Lucan village, just off the Village Green.
The Weir Area should refer to the historic name “Long Walk” as this was its name in the 18th century as evidenced on Scalé’s historic maps, viewable on SDCC Source.
There appears to be no mention in the plans of cleaning up of the Weir area that is needed (invasive Himalayan Balm seems to be growing on the banks of the Liffey, and other cleanup needs to be done of trees and detritus washed down the river during floods etc.) and invasive plants (Buddleia) are currently growing and very established on the structure of the Liffey Bridge, that may cause serious damage to the structure. In the 2007 report mentioned above, it mentioned that “Lucan Bridge would benefit from a restoration programme” and yet, there has been no significant improvements to the structure since that time. The report also suggested that “There is an opportunity to enhance Lucan Bridge with appropriate floodlighting.”
No mention of small play-spaces for young children, which could be sensitively incorporated into small areas of the Weir Area and/or Village Green, both of which would be very welcome aspects to use of these public areas by all ages of the local community.
The missing 18th century, decorated Coade stone plaque inset into the stonework on the Griffeen bridge, which is visible from the village green, should be replaced to complete what was formerly a matching pair of plaques, that faced each other across the Griffeen.