Lucan Village Green Works

October 18 Update - Replies by SDCC to queries myself and others raised as per video below on October 16.

Planting

“The project will re-establish the use of the historic village green as an accessible and safe amenity for the people of Lucan, providing the opportunity to enjoy the Griffeen river and the historic Vesey Bridge along with delivering a notable landscape design.  Planting to the village green will include trees and shrubs such as spindleberry, serviceberry, hydrangea and lavender as well as over 600 perennials and grasses.

Tree removal

“ During the public consultation stage for the scheme, the removal of seven trees was indicated while two trees (spruce and birch) were expected to be retained.  Regrettably, those two additional trees have had to be removed on independent specialist arborist advice but will be replaced by mature trees later in the project.  The birch is being removed as its roots have already considerably damaged the wall causing stonework to fracture and dislocate and this will in time cause a collapse of the wall.  The spruce tree was originally assessed as being suitable for removal and replanting, but a detailed risk assessment has subsequently concluded that this is not feasible, while the Christmas lights there were damaged due to entanglement with branches and could not be salvaged for reuse, but replacement lighting will be arranged in consultation with Councillors and locals.”

Wood carving

“A number of Councillors also enquired about the village green wood carving, which was carefully removed by the contractor and is being safely stored in a Council depot. It will be reinstated when the works are completed next year.”

Drawings

“This project will significantly improve Lucan Village, and I have attached drawings and imagery of the project to help visualise the expected outcome. Despite best intentions as with any major project there will be some disruption and issues arising and the patience and understanding of all concerned as the project progresses is appreciated.”

—

This update October 16 replaces information update of 10th October

16th October - SDCC queried at October full Council meeting on trees supposed to be retained, new planting works, stone retention and growth on Griffeen Bridge. I also asked whether Lucan House grounds could open prior to consultation so residents of Lucan can have somewhere nice to go while works on the Village Green, weir and Demesne areas are underway.

NB - stone work was always supposed to be reintegrated as per this reply back in 2022

—-

10th October - supplemental update to Part 1 of my Sept/Oct Lucan Video Update which outlined works to commence in village. This goes into the original background in a lot more detail with links to the info available back in 2021/22.

I was disappointed to see trees supposed to be retained in the plans for the village green being cut down. This is something I will be chasing up at the next opportunity with Council management. However it was always the case that some of the trees were to be removed. This information was in the public domain, and I referenced it in my video update recently, but it certainly wasn't clear in the more recent literature circulated by SDCC.

There was a massive consultation on this plan which dates back to 2021 and final amendment in April 2022. It’s so long ago that it’s almost as if it didn’t happen and looks like it has been foisted on people when it was debated in detail, although I often do see SDCC tinkering with things after they have been agreed. This plan has all the documents listed here (but ignore references to parking removal, as that was scrapped): https://consult.sdublincoco.ie/en/consultation/part-8-proposed-works-lucan-village-green-and-main-street

While the consultation process is quite touchy feely in many of these proposals and doesn’t allow for multiple choice yes/no questions, and amendments by cllrs have financial restrictions, in terms of costs, the written submissions did let people have their say.

It could equally be said of course, that parts of the voting process were rushed, with many Cllrs supporting management in taking proposals a short time after amended plans were published, meeting a legal framework but denying a few of us a chance to have a few weeks informal follow up consultation within the remaining time leeway permitted before moving to the next stages.

That said, the views conveyed to me by residents were still expressed.

Now virtually all of the focus in the 461 written submissions and absolutely all of the 7,000 petitions was in opposition to the plan to take out 40 parking spaces from the Centra and GP surgery area.

I tabled a motion to remove this proposal which passed by 20 votes to 15 (with local councillors split). Cllr Casserly tabled a similar motion and they were taken together in what was a very contentious debate (which those who saw online will remember, but unfortunately it was back at a time when webcasts weren’t recorded like they are now).

The record shows the votes on our collective motions:

“A discussion on the amendments followed with contributions from Councillors P. Gogarty, V. Casserly, G. O’Connell, and L. O‘Toole, who spoke in support of the amendment (to retain parking spaces). Councillors M. Johansson, J. Tuffy, M. Duff, C. Bailey, L. Sinclair, E. O’Brien, P. Kearns, W. Carey, L. Donaghy, P. Kavanagh all spoke in support of the original Part 8 without any amendments.

Councillors D. Ó Brádaigh, A. Edge, B. Lawlor, K. Mahon queried consultation with the Lucan Area Committee and the impact of supporting the amendments on the Part 8.

Mr. D. McLoughlin, Chief Executive and Mr. M. Mulhern, Director of Land Use, Planning & Transportation, responded to the Members queries informing that the Part 8 had been brought to the Lucan Area Committee and confirmed the Part 8 could proceed should the amendment be agreed.

The Mayor Councillor P. Kavanagh then called for a ROLL CALL VOTE and the Members AGREED the result of which was as follows:

SUPPORT MOTIONS TO SCRAP PARKING SPACE REMOVAL: 20 (TWENTY)

Councillors V. Casserly FG, Y. Collins FF, T. Costello FF, A. Edge Ind, K. Egan FG, T. Gilligan FF, P. Gogarty Ind, A. Hayes Ind , B. Lawlor FG, L. McCrave FG, R. McMahon Ind, D. McManus FG, S. Moynihan FF, E. Murphy FF, G. O’Connell Ind, D. O’Donovan FF, S. O’Hara FG, L. O’Toole Ind, B. Pereppadan FG and F. Timmons Ind

AGAINST PLAN TO SCRAP PARKING SPACE REMOVALS: 15 (FIFTEEN)

Councillors C. Bailey SD, W. Carey SF, L. Donaghy GP, M. Duff Ind , L. Dunne SF, P. Holohan Ind, M. Johansson PBP, P. Kavanagh GP, P. Kearns LAB, K. Mahon PBP, D. Ó Brádaigh SF, C. O’Connor FF, L. Sinclair RG, J. Tuffy LAB and L. Whelan PBP.

ABSTAIN: 0 (ZERO)”

Reminder, the above vote was on the parking element, to scrap plans to remove the spaces.

However, there was less certainty of views on the village green aspect, with mixed opinions on the plaza-type proposal aimed at opening the area up and making it safer and more user-friendly. Most of those who opposed the parking plan didn’t comment on the green works while those who supported the parking removal generally did support the green works.

Some people wanted to keep the pergola, some didn't and some suggested keeping the riverbank trees within the scheme. At the same time, most had no objections to enhancing river access, a key aspect of the proposal. However it became clear that the fence could not come down and safe access be provided to the river AND keep the row of trees adjacent because of roots and trip and slip hazards associated with narrow steps and the height of the drop from the riverbank. These steps had to be wider and graduated.

So to be absolutely clear, it was not possible to create a blended motion proposal that kept trees and also facilitated access to the river. It was either a case of scrap the whole proposal or give it a go. There was no clear direction either way in submissions but if anything there was a slight majority supporting the works . Maybe there might have been less support and more discussion if the plan wasn’t overshadowed by the parking aspect, but that was the main focus of people at the time.

In this respect the ecological impact statement greatly informed the final, absolutely unanimous decision to facilitate this aspect of the plan. This report indicated that of the seven trees due to go to facilitate river access, none had any nesting in them or bat colonies or made any significant contribution towards biodiversity.

The report is here:

4 VG Ecological Impact Assessment

.pdf

Download PDF • 1.49MB

This is where it now appears that aspects of the plan may not have been followed recently.

The ecological study said two trees were to be retained, including the Christmas tree which was to be replanted. One appears in situ, but the Christmas tree seems to be gone with no indication of when it's coming back, if at all.

The design drawing is also confusing regarding another tree that might be retained and does not indicate what was supposed to happen to shrubbery nearest Courtneys.

Five new trees are also supposed to be planted but no timescale has been given and the recent drawings are very sparse compared to the original scheme drawings. I can only hope this was to avoid confusion with the scrapped parking removal aspect which is in the documents I linked.

Because of these anomalies I am seeking further clarity from the Council, as they have made changes to plans before without informing people. We need firm information on trees earmarked for retention, timelines for new planting and a commitment that people’s desire for more greenery can be integrated into the proposal as outlined.

On a separate note, fair play to Lucan Tidy Towns volunteers who went around the green and up near Lucan Demesne collecting a lot of plants in advance of the works commencing.

ENDS