|
PLEASE NOTE!
No letters will be published unless full contact details (Phone Number / Address), have been submitted with same, not necessarily for publication.
Thank You
We wish to thank the Medical Staff at the Main St. Clinic, and all those who helped in a medical emergency last Friday.
Your help and kindness was very much appreciated.
The Phillips Family
A Potential for Misuse of Authority: Altering a Part 8 Approved Project via Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994
South Dublin County Council (SDCC) recently had a consultation titled Lucan Road Boardwalk Alterations. South Dublin County Council (SDCC) appears to be attempting to alter a Part 8 Approved Project by invoking Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994. This raises concerns about transparency, community involvement, and the proper use of legislative powers in urban planning and development.
Understanding the Processes
Part 8 Process: Under the Planning and Development Regulations 2001, the Part 8 process allows local authorities to seek planning permission for specific projects, such as public infrastructure. It mandates public consultation, giving elected councillors and community members the opportunity to voice their opinions and concerns. After considering this feedback, the local authority finalizes its plans.
Section 38 of the Road Traffic Act 1994: This section grants local authorities the power to implement traffic management measures without undergoing the full planning process required by Part 8. While intended for quick traffic-calming measures, it can bypass the essential public consultation and transparency that Part 8 ensures.
The Issue at Hand: Any changes to an already approved Part 8 project should require a new Part 8 process, ensuring that the community and elected councillors can review and provide input on the proposed alterations. Using Section 38 to bypass this process constitutes executive overreach, undermining transparency and community involvement.
Lack of Effective Communication: SDCC has proposed significant changes to the Lucan Demesne and the cycle path from the Greenway into Sarsfield Park, both of which were approved by councillors in 2022. However, there has been no effective communication with the over 60,000 residents and businesses in Lucan regarding these alterations.
Key concerns include:
No Leaflet Drops or Local Press Announcements: Residents and businesses were not informed about the proposed changes unless they were on a specific SDCC mailing list or happened to visit the SDCC public consultation portal.
Overwhelming Online Consultations: SDCC simultaneously launched three public consultations/surveys (Lucan Demesne, Sarsfield Park cycle path, and Lucan House development) without adequate communication. This approach overwhelms and confuses residents, making it difficult for them to respond effectively.
Misleading Terminology: SDCC has used the terms 'consultation' and 'survey' interchangeably, potentially blurring the lines between formal submissions and informal feedback. This could undermine the legal weight of public responses.
The Lucan Road Boardwalk Alterations Survey: A Biased Approach:
The Lucan Road Boardwalk Alterations survey is particularly problematic. It is designed in a way that skews responses toward a predetermined outcome:
Question 7: Respondents must agree to parking removal to submit their answers, effectively excluding those who oppose the changes. This makes the survey biased and unreliable, as it does not fairly represent public opinion.
Misleading Terminology: The survey refers to the cycle path alterations as 'Lucan Road Boardwalk alterations', further confusing respondents about the nature of the changes.
Inappropriate Use of Section 38: SDCC is proposing significant alterations to the 2022 Part 8-approved cycle path into Sarsfield Park, including the construction of a 90 metre board walk, the removal of a considerable number of trees and 8 car parking spaces on Lucan Road These changes warrant a new Part 8 consultation, as they significantly deviate from the original plan. Instead, SDCC is attempting to implement these changes through Section 38, which:
Sidelines Councillors: By using Section 38, SDCC is removing the decision-making and voting rights of elected councillors.
Exceeds the Scope of Section 38: The correct use of Section 38 is to introduce traffic-calming measures on or within the boundaries of public roads. The proposed works, which involve cutting down trees and creating a new boardwalk, fall outside this scope.
Cost Exemption: Projects exceeding 126,000 euro are exempt from Section 38. The proposed works far exceed this threshold, making Section 38 an inappropriate mechanism.
Conclusion: SDCC's actions raise serious questions about its commitment to transparency and community involvement in urban planning. By attempting to bypass the Part 8 process and using Section 38 inappropriately, SDCC risks undermining public trust and sidelining elected representatives. The proposed changes to the Sarsfield Park cycle path warrant a new Part 8 consultation, ensuring that residents and councillors have a meaningful opportunity to review and respond to the alterations.
Key Questions for SDCC:
Why has SDCC failed to communicate effectively with the local population regarding these significant changes?
Is the simultaneous posting of multiple consultations a deliberate strategy to overwhelm and confuse residents?
Why is SDCC using misleading terminology, such as conflating 'consultations' with 'surveys'?
How can SDCC justify the biased design of the Lucan Boardwalk survey, which excludes opposing views?
Why is SDCC using Section 38 inappropriately to bypass the Part 8 process and sideline elected councillors?
David Lombard
|
