I am a local resident writing to strongly object to Material Amendment No. 2(4).
The original masterplan included a dedicated, full-scale pedestrian and cycle bridge connecting Parkleigh / South Link Street directly across the canal to Parkleigh / Lockhouse Way. I believe that relocating and reducing the size of this bridge would be a significant step backwards for the local community for the following reasons:
The layout of Parkleigh was designed around the original bridge location:
The existing layout of Parkleigh, including the parks, green areas, pedestrian routes and green corridors, was specifically designed to connect towards the originally approved bridge landing point. Moving the bridge further east would undermine this existing design and leave the established green spaces and pedestrian routes disconnected from the intended crossing. It would also disrupt the natural flow of walking and cycling routes through the development.
Loss of direct access to Grand Canal Park:
South Dublin County Council recently granted planning permission for Grand Canal Park under Planning Reg. Ref. SDZ25A/0034W. The bridge in its original location would have provided a direct and convenient gateway from Parkleigh into the new park and onto the Grand Canal Greenway. Relocating the bridge east would remove this direct connection and require pedestrians and cyclists to take unnecessary detours.
Impact on my decision to purchase my home:
The planned location of this bridge was one of the factors I considered when deciding to purchase my home in Parkleigh. The original plans indicated that residents would have safe, convenient and direct walking and cycling access to the canal. Changing the location of the bridge after residents have purchased their homes effectively removes an important piece of infrastructure that people could reasonably have relied upon when making their purchasing decisions.
The proposed location does not make sense from a connectivity perspective:
The proposed new location near the 10th/11th Lock would place the crossing very close to the existing Fonthill Road (R113) vehicular bridge and the existing lock crossings. Concentrating several crossings in the same area does not appear to provide the best connectivity for the wider community, particularly when there is currently no bridge serving the area where the original bridge was planned. Instead of improving access across the canal for Parkleigh residents, the amendment would leave our section of the canal without the direct connection originally intended, while creating a concentration of crossings further east.
Conclusion:
For these reasons, I respectfully ask South Dublin County Council and An Coimisiún Pleanála to reject Material Amendment No. 24 and retain the bridge in its original approved location. The original location provides a much more direct, logical and accessible connection between Parkleigh, the canal, Grand Canal Park and the wider walking and cycling network.
We object to this proposed change because we believe it will increase traffic congestion at the remaining two junctions and significantly reduce connectivity for local residents.
Increased traffic on surrounding roads:
Removing vehicular connectivity across the railway line would force all north-south traffic to use the surrounding external arterial roads, particularly Fonthill Road (R113) and Grange Castle Road.
Additional pressure on already congested roads:
Fonthill Road is already heavily congested during peak hours. Removing this connection is likely to divert additional traffic towards Grange Castle Road, placing further pressure on the existing road network and potentially increasing journey times and congestion.
The Council's own modelling identifies potential impacts:
This concern is also reflected in the Council's Bridge Removal Assessment Modelling Report (Systra, 2025). The report identifies issues during both the AM and PM peak periods and specifically notes that the removal of the road link could require mitigation measures to address the resulting impact at the affected junction.
For these reasons, we object to the removal of this vehicular connection and ask that the existing connectivity be retained to avoid unnecessarily concentrating traffic on the surrounding junctions and arterial roads.
We object to this proposed amendment because replacing the mandatory 100% EV charging requirement in Section 2.2.6 with a discretionary assessment could undermine the sustainability objectives of the Clonburris development and create uncertainty for future residents.
Conflict with national climate targets:
Ireland has legally binding climate targets, including a 50% reduction in transport emissions by 2030. Removing the requirement for 100% EV charging provision in a major Strategic Development Zone such as Clonburris could make it more difficult to support these national objectives and the goals of Zero Emission Vehicles Ireland (ZEVI) to encourage the transition to electric vehicles.
Undermining the sustainability objectives of the National Planning Framework:
Clonburris is intended to be a modern and sustainable urban district. National Strategic Objective 8 of the National Planning Framework focuses on the transition towards a carbon-neutral and climate-resilient society. Reducing a clear requirement to a discretionary assessment risks weakening the sustainability standards expected from a new development being designed and built from the outset.
Uncertainty for residents regarding EV charging:
The proposed change is particularly concerning when considered alongside the proposed amendments to parking management under Amendment No. 9. If guaranteed EV charging provision is removed, future residents may have no clear certainty about where charging points will be located, how they can access them, or how the associated electricity costs will be managed. This could create a practical barrier for residents who want to purchase or use an electric vehicle.
Conclusion:
For these reasons, I urge South Dublin County Council and An Coimisiún Pleanála to reject Amendment No. 8 and retain the mandatory 100% EV charging requirement. Maintaining this requirement would provide greater certainty for residents and help ensure that Clonburris continues to support Ireland's wider climate, sustainability and sustainable transport objectives.
I am a local resident writing to strongly object to Material Amendment No. 5, which proposes removing the permitted standalone pedestrian and cycle bridge over the Kildare railway line and replacing it with a pedestrian connection through Clondalkin–Fonthill Railway Station.
1. Creating a physical barrier around the neighbourhood:
This amendment is part of a wider pattern of proposed changes, including the relocation of the Grand Canal bridge under Amendment No. 2, which would leave our neighbourhood increasingly surrounded by major physical barriers such as the railway line, the Grand Canal and Fonthill Road.
Removing dedicated community crossings and replacing them with indirect routes would reduce connectivity between residential areas and essential local destinations. Rather than creating an integrated and accessible urban district, these changes risk leaving parts of the community physically isolated.
2. Increasing walking and cycling distances to planned schools:
The Clonburris SDZ masterplan includes important community infrastructure, including planned primary and post-primary schools, on sites located across the railway corridor.
The approved standalone bridge was intended to provide a direct, safe and traffic-free route for children and families travelling to these schools. Removing this crossing would require students and parents to take longer routes through the railway station area or along busier roads. This would increase daily walking and cycling distances and could create additional road safety concerns, particularly during busy school drop-off and collection periods.
3. The importance of direct and accessible active travel routes:
Major railway lines can create significant physical barriers between communities and essential local services. Urban transport and active travel guidance emphasises the importance of routes that are direct, continuous and accessible to all users.
Using a railway station as the main pedestrian connection introduces additional obstacles that would not exist with a dedicated standalone bridge. Stairs, lifts, station concourses and potentially narrow pedestrian routes can make the journey more difficult for cyclists, cargo-bike users, wheelchair users and parents with buggies. These additional barriers may discourage people from choosing walking or cycling for everyday journeys.
4. Concerns about night-time accessibility and safety:
A dedicated, open and well-lit pedestrian bridge can provide a clear and continuous route with good visibility. In contrast, directing local residents through a railway station environment may introduce areas with restricted access, enclosed spaces and reduced visibility, particularly outside normal station operating periods.
This could make the route less attractive for residents travelling on foot or by bicycle during the evening and at night.
5. Concentrating crossings around Fonthill Road:
Redirecting the railway crossing towards Clondalkin–Fonthill Railway Station would concentrate pedestrian movement close to the existing Fonthill Road (R113) vehicular bridge.
This clustering of crossings in one location would leave a significant gap along the railway corridor, meaning residents living further away from the station would not have a convenient direct connection across the railway line. A more distributed network of crossings would provide better connectivity and more practical options for local residents.
Conclusion:
A station footbridge primarily serves people accessing the railway station, whereas a dedicated standalone pedestrian and cycle bridge provides a direct connection between neighbourhoods and supports everyday journeys to schools, parks, local services and other community facilities.
For these reasons, I urge South Dublin County Council and An Coimisiún Pleanála to reject Material Amendment No. 5 and retain the approved standalone pedestrian and cycle bridge over the railway line. Maintaining this connection would help ensure that Clonburris develops as a well-connected, accessible and integrated community.