— Planned openings in walls and other barriers would provide more direct access to a mix of schools, public transport, and the Royal Canal Greenway.
Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Social Democrats, and Labour councillors in Kildare are moving to delete references to proposed walking and cycling permeability improvements contained in the Draft Maynooth and Environs Joint Local Area Plan 2025 – 2031.
The vote on the issue is expected to happen at a council meeting tomorrow (Monday).
Cul-de-sacs housing estates are seen by transport and planning experts as car-centric planning which makes the walking and cycling less attractive. Modern urban design guidance outlines that improving permeability links is key for increasing activity and health via active travel, increasing mobility access especially for people with mobility disabilities, improving access to public transport and increasing social cohesion.
The motions to remove a wide range of proposed permeability links from Maynooth comes after some intensive lobbying from residents in estates who do not want access points opened up for walking and cycling.
It is understood that the chief executive of Kildare County Council has said in an official reply to the councillors’ motion that the permeability links are crucial to help reduce car dependency and promote active travel.
The councillors who have motions against the walking and cycling measures are Cllr Aidan Farrelly (Social Democrats), Cllr Angela Feeney (Labour), Cllr Naoise Ó Cearúil (Fianna Fail), Cllr Tim Durkan (Fine Gael), and Cllr Peter Melrose (Social Democrats).
The motions range in the number of permeability links which the councillors want to be removed, with Cllr Ó Cearúil looking for 46 links to be removed from the plan.
Some residents have expressed their fears to councillors on increasing anti-social behaviour but planners say well-designed permeability links increase footfall and improves safety.
Concerns were also raised about increasing non-residents parking in estates close to the train station in the town.
A National Transport Authority (NTA) guidance document on permeability outlines how “A permeable district can contribute to a range of planning objectives related to design, social integration and transport.”
The NTA guidance continues: “Permeability can enhance the attractiveness of a neighbourhood through the provision of additional useable open space; can increase social interactions by facilitating more activity in the public realm, and can maximise the potential for walking and cycling to a range of services.”
This is incredibly short-sighted. I live in an estate where pedestrian entrances were closed off 20 years ago by residents association busybodies. The result is that kids are forced to walk an additional 20 minutes to get to school and are often driven adding to the morning gridlock. Permeability is vital and works fine in older Dublin estates where connecting paths and pedestrian entrances were designed properly.
Looking at the Maynooth LAP submissions on the Kildare Coco website, it is very clear why this is happening: https://consult.maynooth.ie/en/browse
There are 1000+ submissions mostly providing variations of the same most likely professionally prepared document with detailed objections to each of the permeability measures. Someone clearly spent substantial time and money having the report drawn up and persuading a large number of people to make submissions based on it. As is often the case a small number of determined people can have an undue impact on the outcome of a public submission process.
As a resident affected by the potential change (and an avid cyclist and advocate for walking towns) – many of the comments made on this are ill informed. The proposed permiability / access proposed will not shorten any journey other than one over a wall. Before anyone comments further I suggest that they all read the documentation fully (not the excerpts or summaries), look it up on Google maps and actually visit the places where the proposes changes will happen (which is more than the planners did). Then feel free to articulate opinions based on fact rather than ‘outrage’.
In regard to the submissions of which I made one – the residents across Maynooth got together and worked for many weeks to structure submissions in a clear and susinct way to ensure that the information was in a format that was usable by the planners. The structure was widely used by many residents. This demonstrated a community working together. Also please note that of the 1000+ submissions made – there are very few advocating for the permiability.
Hi Denton, I’ve looked at the maps — it’s clear that most of the links would offer at least some benefit.
The submissions show clear signs of all the usual excuses and scaremongering. Fear is a great motivator.
Jane Jacobs — arguably the most well-known advocate for walking and more livable urban areas — outlined that permeability and eyes on the streets is key. She’d be rolling in her grave with somebody fighting against permeability calling themselves an advocate for walking.
The piece above leaves out any mention that some of the permeability measures involved running busses through holes in the wall in the estate, not just walking and cycling links. It was on this basis that the specific measure was opposed. This would then involve running busses through two estates, one of which was designed with this in mind, the other which was not.
There is absolutely huge usage of cars for very short journeys in maynooth, and we need more walking and cycling. However no one was able to work out why we needed another bus running parallel to an existing bus route.
For walking and cycling, I can get anywhere I want in maynooth on my bike. It was not obvious how this measure would improve that.
I think the article above is a bit misleading at the least.
Which bus route proposal are you talking about? I’m from Maynooth and have read the plan but I don’t know what you’re referring to.
Hi Michael ,
In the original plan it is referred to as PT-2
bus gate at the school, and at other end of the estate, new pedestrian, bus and cycle link between moyglare hall and lyreen avenue.
I’m from Maynooth. I’ve read through the submissions. Many of them are desperately needed and so obvious – For example Silken Vale to the train station, some of the Moyglare housing estates to the college. I’ve also heard false claims from other locals that there will be roads built, when actually what’s proposed is walking and cycling routes.
So can I ask how shortening routes from Silken vale to the train station, from Leinster Park to the canal, from Moyglare states to the college, Carton Court to Lidl etc etc etc are not worthwhile and “will not shorten any journey”?
Can I also ask if you think the existing links between Parklands & Rockfield, Kingsbry & Meadowbrook, Beaufield & Cluain Aobhinn etc etc should be boarded up/closed off? Links that have existed for 40 years. And newer ones such as Greenfield Drive and Mullen Park. And if not, why not? Why are the new proposals any different to those ones?
I can see a point where laneways roads were blocked due to anti social issues.a lot of them closed due to easy escape routes from gardai as well. In finglas were asking for more roads. Lanes to be closed or blocked and any reopenings would have the local council gardai and residents up in arms as it would mean the drug dealers would have free reign again
Blocked lanes do have the inverse problem of dumping though. It also creates a massive access problem for public transport users with extended journey times. The closest to Kishoge are only 7mins drive away but it’s over an hour walk as permeability was never considered.
If open drug-dealing is a problem in an area, then I can see that permeability might be viewed negatively, but closing down access to an area is not a good idea for the broader community and the actions of drug-dealers should not impact community connectivity and cohesion any more than they already do. I very much doubt that there is a drug-dealing issue in Maynooth so the point is moot. The “anti social behaviour” that was used as an excuse in the case of our estate was a few harmless kids hanging around and being loud now and again and we are now all paying the price, particularly the kids.
I’m a resident in an estate near the university. Our roads are frequently filled with cars parked on both sides, often illegally close to junctions & making access difficult at times. Most of these cars belong to students. In the absence of a plan to cap the numbers of cars allowed to park in housing estates (e.g. designated parking spaces, double yellow lines at junctions or narrow stretches), permeability will simply encourage students to use more of the estates as free car parks in increasing numbers. To achieve what the plan wants to achieve, I think we need clear limits to car parking spaces first before permeability.
With respect, this is an entirely different issue and blocking permeability will not make any difference in this regard. It will only impact kids who would otherwise be able to walk to school in a reasonable time but will be forced to spend an extra 20 minutes walking or more likely get their parents to drop them. It also impacts community spirit and interconnectivity between different parts of the town. This has been the experience in my area. Be very careful what you wish for.
If parking is a problem ask the council for a plebiscite to bring in disk parking. My street was plagued with parking issues including rampant double parking which often meant bins couldn’t be collected. Disk parking sorted it out.
https://mastodon.ie/@maynoothcycling/113448257742234228
Above is a map of all the permeability measures that have now been struck off due to this council meeting. The material alterations are published here:
https://consult.maynooth.ie/en/consultation/proposed-material-alterations-draft-maynooth-and-environs-joint-local-area-plan-2025-2031-0