Lucan Village Green Works

Rolling report following commencement of works in village including details from public consultation in 2021/22. More recent updates include inputs from Cllr Helen Farrell.

---

13th June 2025 - Response to specific queries published in Lucan Newsletter

Reply to Lucan Newsletter queries about Village Green works - by Paul Gogarty TD and Cllr Helen Farrell

1. What was the initial costing of the work on the Village Green? - €3.7 million has been budgeted for the combined Green, Weir and the Demesne entrance with an addition €300,000 for the Demesne car park and €400,000 for a Demesne water sports upgrade. The rolling three-year budget also includes €12.75m for Lucan House purchase and enhancement, €500,000 for "Lucan Destination Town" initiatives, and €1.2 million set aside for the planned purchase and enhancement of Lucan Schoolmaster's House.

2. What is expected to be the final costing for this work?

This won't be available until the next budgetary process, but there's no indication of a substantial overspend. There were some technical delays around the Weir area, but we are not sure if this added significantly to the cost, if at all.

A mini-boardwalk was added into the Demesne plan later which we believe is already budgeted (NB -this is separate to the Council’s controversial cycling boardwalk plan between Brookvale and Sarsfield Park/Dispensary Lane, which was supported by all Cllrs (except Paul Gogarty at the time, and Helen Farrell, as she was not a sitting Councillor until December 2024) in 2022, and which now has a non-votable proposal to reduce it in scale.

3. We ask the above question as there have been widespread reports of concrete being laid, and abruptly dug up again for some reason - True or False?

There was some concrete poured for footpath works opposite the area which needed to be re-laid because of weather damage and to avoid it becoming a trip hazard.

4. Where is the money coming from?

It is coming from the Council's Capital budget. SDCC's budget for 2025 is an estimated €391,942,200 and anticipates income of €227,067,200 from a range of services and sources including "rents, fees, charges, loan repayments, grants, and recoupments". The remaining costs are met by €133.5m from commercial rates and €31.5m approx from Local Property Tax.

5. Has a problem arisen? (Progress is very slow on the site, and it has been noticed that workers are in short supply over the past few weeks).

We’ve been informed that the workers aren't always necessarily on the site itself as a lot of works are required all around the area, involving under the roadway, footpaths, public lighting, liaising with ESB Networks etc. The only notable delay was for trout spawning, where the contractor could not go near the riverbank area until permission to resume came from Inland Fisheries Ireland.

6. Is this water-feature (above) intentional?

The picture is referring to a culvert integrated into the plaza to avoid the amphitheatre flooding, which will be covered by paving and decorative stone, and not visible on completion.

Bretland have confirmed that they are bagging and re-using all the stone. Visualise this; at the point where the stonework is currently removed from the river-wall will be part of the sunken amphitheatre. This will be a seating / performance space in the centre of the village green. As the amphitheatre dips down to the level of the Griffeen River, a glass balustrade will form the barrier and enable people to get right down to see the river.

Around this, the traditional stonework will rise in a U shape and the wall and masonry will be constructed from the materials that are currently forming the wall. It's a merging of the old and the new. Bretland stonemasons are currently on-site and re-using all masonry from the wall; it is not being got rid of.

We’ve also been told that any water diversion on the site is "to protect workers from the river and to protect the river from workers". The current estimates for completion are October for the Village Green area and September for the Weir and Demesne areas.

Paul and Helen add:

The history of the scheme up to now and the Council's minimalist approach to public consultation is on the record as is their refusal, supported by some Councillors, to allow an additional month within the permitted legal framework for further discussion with local residents.

With over 470 submissions made, the clear wishes of the people in opposing the parking removal plans (7,000 petition signatures also) were reflected in Paul Gogarty and Vicki Casserly motions to scrap this element, which were passed by 20-15 on the day. There was no call in submissions to scrap the plaza plan and as such no other amendments were tabled. It's also the case that a motion to scrap the plan would likely have been defeated and we would today have the same green plan but with no parking at this location, plus the likelihood of additional trees being cut down the shops side of the riverbank. It is regrettable that the trees supposed to be retained on the green in the plan weren’t kept. There is a commitment for significant planting in the area and hopefully when completed it will do the design pictures justice.

For those who want more insight into the history of this plan, design drawings, submissions, discussions etc there is a detailed outline below from earlier posts. See also the first article in this link here: https://www.paulgogarty.com/post/lucan-update-sept-oct-2024-part-1

—-

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. See here if you want the full details. It's the first article: https://www.paulgogarty.com/post/lucan-update-sept-oct-2024-part-1

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