Permeability routes becoming problematic

“I do not see the benefit of where the permeability routes are taking us.”

Concerns were raised about the suggested permeability routes in the draft of the Clondalkin Local Planning Framework at a special meeting held to discuss the document.

Several councillors made their worries about the permeability routes laid out in the draft of the Clondalkin LPF, which will see parts of the village open up and interconnect, including cul-de-sacs.

Multiple permeability openings were brought into question by local representatives, such as at Floraville and Monastery Heath.

Councillor William Carey does not see the benefit in creating these routes throughout the village.

Cllr Carey said: “I do not see the benefit of where the permeability routes are taking us. These particular permeability routes do not offer huge differences to the flow of people going to and from different parts of Clondalkin.

“Instead, in my view, they become problematic for residents around there. They also create dangers for children who could enter into traffic flow.”

The proposed route that Cllr Carey refers to is the opening of a gate between Cherrywood Avenue onto the Old Nangor Road.

The Clondalkin councillor does not oppose all permeability routes, he stated, but noted that the local authority need to work with residents in the creation of this document and seek agreement with those directly impacted by changes.

Councillor Emma Muprhy questioned the ability of the council to gain the local agreement of residents before proceeding with changes.

Cllr Murphy said: “You could have one resident that is for it and 400 against it…we have a public consultation in place for all of these permeability routes.”

Councillor Linda De Courcy noted that it was important that the council “accept the will” of the people in estates if the majority make clear they do not want a permeability route attached to their location.

Cllr Carey stated that the draft framework was already put out for consultation at a previous stage in its development.

For some at that previous stage, the prospect of shortened journeys and more active travel was welcome, but others felt it opened up the possibility of anti-social behaviour.

Cllr Carey felt that the permeability routes suggested in the planning framework is a way for the local authority to “make up for bad planning in the first place” and stated his unwillingness to support the establishment of routes with opposition already voiced via previous consultations.

He said: “The problem is that people have a sense of tranquility, a sense of security in what’s around them at the moment, and for us to disturb it – it becomes a problem.

“We have already gone out for consultation and it is clear that people who are going to be deeply impacted by any of these routes have voiced their opposition.”

South Dublin County Council Senior Planner Hazel Craigie noted that the permeability routes are “so important” to help stop congestion in the same area: “We can’t do that if we keep doing the same thing.”

Funded by the Local Democracy Reporting Scheme.