I am a resident of Parkleigh which is
the first residential development in the new neighbourhood of Seven Mills, part of the
Clonburris SDZ.
While I support sustainable urban development and the principle of modal
shift toward active travel and public transport, I wish to formally lodge an Objection to
Amendment No. 2, Amendment No. 3, and Amendment No. 9 of the Proposed Material
Amendments to the Clonburris SDZ Planning Scheme 2019.
My objections stem from premature infrastructure reductions, lack of current public transport
infrastructure, and the negative impact these amendments will have on safety, traffic
congestion, and residential amenity.
We object to relocating and downsizing this bridge. Retaining a full-sized bridge in its original
location will work much better for the community over the long term.
•
•
The original location provides a direct, uninterrupted route connecting the Grand
Canal Greenway, South Link Street, Northern Link Street, and the Urban Core.
Moving the bridge forces pedestrians and cyclists through local residential roads,
creates unnecessary detours on a primary transit route, and pulls foot traffic further
away from local schools.
We anticipate this bridge will be heavily used by cyclists, runners, families with
buggies, dog walkers, and wheelchair users. A downsized bridge will inevitably
create bottlenecks and won't be fit for purpose during busy periods.
I object to this change as we believe it will cause more traffic congestion on the other two
junctions and will restrict our connections.
•
•
Completely removing vehicular connectivity across the railway line forces all
north-south traffic onto surrounding external arterial roads (such as Fonthill Road /
R113 and the local road network).
As highlighted in the Council’s own Bridge Removal Assessment Modelling Report
(Systra, 2025), removing this vehicular link results in significant traffic rerouting. The
report states the following: A n i s s u e w a s i d e n t i fi e d i n b o t h t h e A M a n d P M f o r
t h i s j u n c t i o n . T h e i m p a c t s o f t h e r o a d r e m o v a l m a y r e q u i r e m i t i g a t i o n t o a d d r e s s
t h e i m p a c t a t t h i s j u n c t i o n .
I object to this proposed amendment, particularly the Council’s intention to avoid
allocating individual parking spaces to residents.
•
•
•
Residents in developments such as Parkleigh and Cooper Square already have
allocated parking. I am concerned about what the proposed changes would mean
for existing developments and how parking would be managed and enforced in
practice.
Unallocated parking directly contradicts the Council’s push for EV adoption. In
existing developments like Parkleigh, allocated spaces allow residents to invest their
own money in installing home EV chargers. Without assigned spaces, neither
residents nor Owners’ Management Companies (OMCs) have certainty about where
to install EV chargers or who will cover the cost. This leaves neighbourhoods stuck
with the minimum 10% provision.
These restrictions are being introduced before public transport projects (DART+ SW,
BusConnects) are delivered. Until viable alternatives exist, restricting resident
parking will only lead to overspill onto surrounding roads.
Instead of prematurely restricting resident parking, we ask South Dublin County Council to
consider the following practical measures:
•
•
•
Investigate the use of undeveloped building sites (e.g. future school or employment
building site) as a temporary overflow parking until public transport projects are
delivered.
Increase commuter and visitor parking near the urban cores.
Increase public transportation including bus and trains on weekdays and weekends and extra services during peak hours