is reader-funded journalism. To keep it going and free-to-view, it takes people like you to act now and subscribe today for €5, €10, or €20 per month.

Council CEO rejects including cycle routes to schools in development plan

— Defined routes to schools ruled as “premature” or not “appropriate” to plan.
— Councillors to have final say but CEO doesn’t want cycling on plan’s maps.
— Objection from council management despite support from developers.

Fingal County Council’s CEO has rejected a number of cycling related development plan motions, despite support from councillors and little or no public opposition.

“It really makes no sense to be saying it’s premature to put reservations [for cycle routes] on the map. The lack of reservations frustrates transport projects, but the presence of a few reservations does not frustrates urban development,” said Cllr David Healy (Green Party).

The motions previously attracted cross-party support but now have to be voted on again by councillors ahead of the council’s development plan meetings tomorrow, Tuesday 14th, and on Thursday 16th. Cllr Healy is urging residents of Fingal to contact councillors and ask them to continue to support the cycling measures in face of opposition from the council management.

He said that the council management’s push to rule that walking and cycling route reservations as not suitable for the development plan is in contrast to road reservations which are included in the plan.

Cllr Healy added: “Reference to routes in the text which aren’t marked on the map and therefore not visible to applicants or planners is contrary to the whole idea of map-based planning. Note that there are no road reservations in the written plan which aren’t marked on the maps.”

In relation to proposed cycling and pedestrian routes between residential areas and schools — including from Abbeville to Kettle’s Lane; Balgriffin to Teagasc Kinsealy, and Portmarnock to Teagasc Kinsealy — there were only four submissions.

One submission was from Cllr Healy supporting the routes and another was from Cllr Jimmy Guerin (independent) who claimed that the routes as well as other public transport routes amounted to “ideological aspirations [which] will have a huge impact on our house building programme as lands which are currently zoned residential will become sterile as no developer will proceed with building houses”, but the last two submissions were from developers of some of the land in question and they wrote in support of the walking and cycling routes.

One of the developers even said they were already planning a cycleway on their land and wanted to be sure the alignments were consistent.

But the response from council management said that it would be “premature at this stage to reserve certain corridors free from development (which may prejudice future proper planning and sustainable development of the area) until such time as route locations and alignments have been finalised”.

You're read this much of the article... So, if you value our journalism, please subscribe today for €5, €10, or €20 per month.

This mirrors a situation in the Dublin City Council development plan process where major road projects — including the Eastern Bypass motorway — were included in the development plan but council official argued against the inclusion of defined cycle routes.

Fingal County Council also viewed it as not appropriate to include a map of the National Transport Authority’s Great Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan in the development plan, saying that it “was prepared at a strategic level including indicative routes that require more detailed design on a route by route basis subject to a public consultation process.”

MOTIONS AND RESPONSES FROM COUNCIL CEO: is reader-funded journalism. That means it's funded by readers like you.

Subscription drive update: reached its target of 270 subscribers by the end of August -- thank you to all who have helped! Our new target is to have 300 subscribers by the end of 2022 -- originally this was hoped to be exceeded by the first year of running the site full time (end of October).

If you can help push above 300 subscribers, please subscribe today for €5 or more. If you have already done so -- thank you!

Please remember, every month there's a natural drop-off in subscriptions due to people getting new cards, cards stolen, Revolut not topped up etc.

*** is a reader-funded journalism publication. Effectively it's an online newspaper covering news and analyses of cycling and related issues, including cycle route designs, legal changes, and pollical and cultural issues.

There are examples, big and small, which show that the reader-funded or listener-funding model can work to support journalism -- from the Dublin Inquirer and The Guardian to many podcasts. To make it work for, it just needs enough people like you to believe!

Monthly subscriptions will give's journalism a dependable base of support. But please don't take free access for granted. Last year had an average of 15,800 readers per month and we know our readers include people who cycle and those who don't, politicians, officials and campaigners.

I know only a small percentage of readers will see the value of keeping this open enough to subscribe, that's the reality of the reader-funded model. But more support is needed to keep this show on the road.

The funding drive was started in November 2021 and, as of the start of June 2022, 250 readers have kindly become monthly subscribers -- thank you very much to all that have!

But currently, it's only around 1.6% of readers who subscribe. So, if you can, please join them and subscribe today via

Cian Ginty


  1. FFS, there is already a development plan covering Fingal in existence: the 2013 National Transport Authority Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan and Fingal County Council were involved in its creation:

    Greater Dublin Area Cycle Network Plan: Part 1: Written Report, Page ii:

    “Consultation with the Local Authorities
    The Project Team met with representatives of each of the seven Local Authorities on a number of occasions during the lifetime of the project. The Local Authorities were the primary stakeholders for the project. This group was consulted on an on-going basis throughout the project in order to provide information, confirm proposals and contribute to the development of the future Cycle Network Plan.”

    So what’s wrong with this plan that it cannot be adopted?


Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.