Submission Regarding Proposed Permeability Improvements (Per 2, 3, & 4) - 05 Local Transport Plan

To: South Dublin County Council (SDCC) Planning/Transport Department Subject: Formal Objection and Request for Reconsideration of Permeability Improvements (Per 2, 3, & 4) in the Local Area

As a concerned resident of Floraville, I wish to formally object to the proposed Permeability Improvements (Per 2, 3, and 4) detailed in the 05 Local Transport Plan. These plans demonstrably fail to account for the expressed concerns of local residents and are likely to create significant negative consequences, contradicting the core objective of community-focused development.

The proposed gaps and openings are a source of numerous reports of anti-social behaviour and are considered by residents to be more detrimental than beneficial. We urge SDCC to seriously consider the established negative social impacts before proceeding.

Furthermore, it is the collective view of the Floraville residents that Permeability Improvements 2, 3, and 4 are not needed in this area and should be entirely withdrawn from the current plan.

Per 3: Quick Access to GAA Club

• Traffic and Safety Risk: The assertion that quick access to the GAA club is required is disputed. The proposed opening will inevitably lead to increased volume and illegal/irresponsible parking along the road, particularly on match and training days. This dramatically increases the risk to children and pedestrians in the area.

• Existing Traffic Issues: The current volume of parking on school days is already excessive, to the point where emergency vehicle access (e.g., an ambulance) is often compromised. Per 3 will exacerbate this critical safety issue.

• Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) Risk: The introduction of this gap will encourage the use of e-scooters and similar unpoliced modes of transport through residential areas, increasing the risk of accidents and contributing to ASB.

Per 2: Village Access Opening

• Prior Failure and Zero Benefit: This opening was established in the past and subsequently closed specifically due to issues with anti-social behaviour. Residents require a clear justification from SDCC as to why this issue will not recur.

• Cost vs. Benefit: The opening offers a marginal saving of approximately 40 metres of walking distance to the village, providing zero practical benefit to the community. Proceeding with this costly plan given its prior failure and negligible utility is an irresponsible use of public funds.

Per 4: Floraville Avenue School Access

• Scope Creep and Traffic Impact: Per 4 currently functions as a restricted access point, primarily used on school days. The proposed "improvement" suggests a plan to make this a 24/7 access point.

• This increased accessibility will inevitably lead to further traffic and parking issues in Floraville Avenue, an outcome that is uneconomical and unwarranted outside of school operational hours.

The views of the Floraville residents, including myself, must be taken seriously. SDCC's role is to represent the local populace, and this includes heeding the input of elected representatives in the area. The current proposal is causing considerable anxiety and mental health concerns within the community, as there is a strong perception that these plans are being "railroaded through" in an undemocratic manner, benefitting no one who will be negatively affected by the changes.

Traffic Assessments and New Developments-

I am deeply concerned regarding the necessity of these permeability improvements, particularly considering the recent substantial construction of new apartments in the area. I question whether the traffic assessments for these new developments were accurate and whether the proposed permeability improvements are a reactive measure to correct an error or oversight on SDCC's part concerning predicted traffic flow and volume.

We request a complete cessation of Permeability Improvements 2, 3, and 4 and an open, transparent review of the associated traffic assessments and community impact reports.