Open fencing between Phoenix Park Racecourse and Deerpark Drive

It is certainly something that should be approved. Dublin 15 is full of walls blocking off easy pedestrian access.

I wonder would many from deerpark be sending kids to that school and going to the train station. If that's the carrot.

The ones that aren't (or weren't) blocked obviously didn't have problems. The ones that were did. Thought that would be self explanatory.

But its fair to say Deerpark and Georgian Village should be similar. That sets a precedent nearby.

This access to Deerpark already got approval in principle as part of the previous planning application (FW20A/0023) for the new houses in the Edmund Rice end of the racecourse. In their conditions, the planners have asked for a revised landscape plan showing the connection between the new estate and Deerpark Drive. See the snip below from the condition of the planning decision. My understanding is that this will be provided to the planners before the commencement of works and it won't need to be submitted as part of a new planning application, it just needs to be approved by the planners.

The only people who'd actually benefit from such an access point would be the people of Deerpark, so if they don't want it, what's the issue?

I guessing Deerpark and around Castleknock in general has the oldest demographic and the least amount of children in D15. Again guessing, I reckon the majority of kids going to that school will be from new estates and a good amount will travel to it due not being able to get a place in a local school. But the few I know are planning to get the train to it.

From observation that train station has the fewest passengers getting on/of the train. Though that might improve with the new housing nearby. I don't see access from Deerpark to the train/school being off much interest to many in Deerpark. By not many I mean enough to create public demand to open it.

I could be completely wrong. They could always open it with a locked/time gate on a trial basis. See how it works out. No one ever seems to want to try that. Be interesting to see how it works out

How do you define local?

I live in Dublin 15, I am familiar with the Edmund Rice School from their time in Blanchardstown Village.

I have an interest in increasing permeability for pedestrians and cyclists across Dublin 15, particularly as a means of reducing car travel.

Sure, I don't live in Deerpark, but that just means I am not a NIMBY.

Were these "problems" anything stronger than "I don't like the look of that bunch of teenagers"?

As that's the sole (actual - lots of spurious gibberish too) reason that's ever been used for closures around me. And now that the elderly councillors who always backed that up are retired I'm hoping people look to get them reversed.

Like?

A changing of the guard currently underway with a lot of younger families moving into the area.

Crime.

The problem with NIMBYism is because of the exclusive focus on those most immediately affected by something without consideration of the wider benefits to the larger community.

This is a really good example of that. Sure, there are a handful of houses which will be directly affected by this, but over time there will be many thousands of local residents who will use the short cut.

Matched the brevity and effort (lack thereof) of the question.

There lots of research and studies into permeability and the issues thereof. It's not all rainbows and unicorns. At least not all of them.

In short at the time they were associated with lots of crime that mostly evaporated after they were closed. I would not make that sweeping generalisation about them all, as different locations and time periods have different issues. Some never had issues which is why they stayed open.

They do.

You were asked for specific examples and have completely failed to do so, presumably as you actually don't have any. And the non-reasons you gave all just point to the scared of strange teenagers thing; which when boiled down is the primary reason anyone ever gives for boxing themselves in to a non-permeable estate.

Well you're doubling down on the NIMBY.

Trying to argue that those almost entirely unaffected by something should have as much say as those directly impacted doesn't make much sense. It certainly is not likely to win over those people. As tactic it seems fundamentally flawed.

I would say this is a access that is likely to be trouble free as there is precedent with other ones nearby. But I would be doubtful it would be busy route, due to its obscure location and catchment of the local schools. It likely to be useful only to a very minority of people. But its developing area. Who knows. Like I said you could open on a trial basis and see what happens.

So you can't actually give any real examples.

You could just have said so, you know.

The usual method that those scared of teenagers use to get permeability closed is insist there is loitering by said teenagers they're scared of seeing; and that "burglars can run away from police!". These aren't actual crimes - the burglary itself is, but would be less likely to happen with passive surveillance from increased pedestrian traffic anyway.

The research and studies disagree with you.

How will you quantify users who are not local.