> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.dublininquirer.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # In third attempt to revamp Mountjoy Square, council adds "play zone" and second half-basketball court - URL: https://www.dublininquirer.com/in-third-attempt-to-revamp-mountjoy-square-council-adds-play-zone-and-second-half-basketball-court/ - Published: 2026-09-04T00:10:38.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-04T00:10:38.000Z - Description: The new plan is currently out to public consultation. - Author: Laoise Neylon - Tags: parks, City Desk, Mountjoy Square Dublin City Council has made a couple of small changes to its plan for the redevelopment of Mountjoy Square – adding a new play zone for young children, and a second basketball half-court. But confusion over two big issues remains: whether kids will be allowed and able to play soccer on the park's new main lawn, and whether there'll be a fenced-in playground for small children. Council executives are seeking to restore the historic park in line with its Georgian heritage, creating a large central lawn area, restoring its railings and adding 84 “oil” lamps around the park’s edges. To do that, they need to get planning permission from councillors via the council's internal planning permission process, known as the Part 8 process. The [details of this new version](https://planning.agileapplications.ie/dublincity/application-details/177076?ref=dublininquirer.com) of the plan are on the council's planning database, and currently out for [public consultation](https://engage.dublincity.ie/en-IE/projects/re-imagining-mountjoy-square-park-part-8-2?ref=dublininquirer.com) until 11 September. Earlier this year, local councillors [supported](https://www.dublininquirer.com/council-looks-set-to-agree-plans-to-revamp-mountjoy-square-despite-pushback-from-local-sports-clubs/) a previous version of the plan at their May meeting. Then, when the plan went to the full 63-member council at their [monthly meeting on Monday 8 June](https://www.dublininquirer.com/council-approves-plans-for-mountjoy-square-park-but-there-is-still-confusion-over-playgrounds-and-sports/), executives pushed them to approve it fast. But the report the chief executive gave to councillors about the project in advance of that meeting didn't include a detailed and representative run-down of public feedback on the plans. And most of the actual submissions to the public consultation hadn't been uploaded to the council’s planning database for councillors to review until 6 June, the Saturday before the Monday meeting. Then, at that meeting, officials pushed councillors to pass the plans in a hurry, providing [incorrect advice](https://www.dublininquirer.com/council-chief-says-his-team-gave-wrong-timeline-when-they-hurried-councillors-to-vote-on-mountjoy-square-redesign/) about the legal deadline for the councillors to make their decision. Green Party Councillor Janet Horner, a local councillor who supported that plan, says the council had to abandon that planning application because of those issues. “No one is defending the previous process,” she said by phone on Thursday. So the council started the Part 8 planning application again. Horner said she wants the redevelopment to go ahead but that the process needs to be done properly. ## Third time lucky? This is now the third time the council has applied for planning permission to revamp Mountjoy Square in recent years. Despite agreement among local councillors in favour of the plan to revamp the square in line with its Georgian heritage, the council hasn't been able to get an application across the line. In 2019, the council abandoned a planning application for the square amid [tensions](https://www.dublininquirer.com/in-mountjoy-square-disparate-visions-for-a-park-s-future/) between conservationists, who wanted to see the park restored in line with its Georgian heritage, and others who wanted to retain sports facilities. That issue doesn’t appear to have been resolved since. But the council seems to have come down more on the side of conservationists. In January 2026, it unveiled its [new proposal](https://www.dublininquirer.com/councils-plans-for-mountjoy-square-contested-by-those-who-want-more-sports-facilities-added/) to reimagine the park in Mountjoy Square within the context of its original 1802 design. The plans show big grassy lawns, trees, paths to walk on, benches to sit on, as well as a public toilet – and the creche still there. But the current tarmac sports area, basketball court, and existing playgrounds were gone. Instead there was a half-court basketball hoop, an outdoor gym, and pieces of play equipment dotted throughout the park. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/9f/78/9f782dda-9dc9-44d1-b817-fe80588bdc76/content/images/2026/09/image.png) A large lawn area in the design could be used for general recreation, events or sports, a council official said in May. That 2026 plan was agreed by the full council in June but the council chief executive decided to [pull it entirely and start again](https://www.dublininquirer.com/after-first-try-goes-wrong-council-to-re-run-planning-process-for-mountjoy-square-park/). So with that process abandoned, the council is now re-running the slightly different plan which is [currently out for public consultation. ](https://engage.dublincity.ie/en-IE/projects/re-imagining-mountjoy-square-park-part-8-2/1?ref=dublininquirer.com) ## New plan, outstanding concerns The 196 submissions that people took the time to send to the council as part ofthe previous public consultation are void because this is a new plan with a new public consultation process, says Horner and Sinn Féin CouncillorSéamas McGrattan. Horner, the Green Party councillor, said the council has written to all those who submitted last time to invite them to submit again. Jack O’Brien, a community co-ordinator with Bohemian Football Club, who runs football activities for children in the park throughout the summer months, says he got that communication. He plans to write another submission to the new public consultation process, and he knows other sports and community groups that and are doing that again. “It's frustrating,” O'Brien says. “It's a total mess.” O’Brien runs Bohs Play, a football programme for children aged 6 to 12 living in the north inner-city. The programme organises small football matches for kids, in council flat complexes and on Mountjoy Square Park, which is the only space big enough to allow them to run multiple matches at one time, says O’Brien. “There are extremely limited options for a part of the city with thousands of people who want to play football,” he says. He usually has two to four games going at once, and often community gardaí help referee the games, he says. Many of the children live in emergency accommodation and IPAS accommodation, he says, and often Bohs Play is their only after-school activity. Before he writes his new submission, he wants clarity from council officials as to whether Bohs Play would still be able to use the park after the redevelopment, under the latest version of the plans. “We’re still left in the dark about it,” says O’Brien by phone on Wednesday. “It feels like the wording is very vague.” He said he welcomes the addition of another half-court for basketball in the new plan, and the council’s commitment to improving the small pitches in some local flat complexes, he says. The latest report says that the council will refurbish "existing courts, pitches, multi-use games areas (MUGAs), and playgrounds within the surrounding Dublin City Council housing developments" and that capital funding has been set aside for those works citywide. Horner says she thinks informal football games would be allowed on Mountjoy Square Park's new lawn area, but that space won’t be available for booking, so organised sports, like training and matches, won’t be able to take place, she says. There's also the issue of the playgrounds in the park. At the moment, if you walk into Mountjoy Square Park, there are two playgrounds: a fenced-in one for very small children, and a fence-less one for slightly bigger little ones. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/9f/78/9f782dda-9dc9-44d1-b817-fe80588bdc76/content/images/2026/09/Mountjoy-Square.-Photo-by-Sam-Tranum-1-1.webp) Photo by Sam Tranum. In the previous version of the redevelopment plan, the one councillors approved back in June, before it was scrapped, both playgrounds were gone. Council officials said the plans actually included more things to play on – they were just scattered around the park, along a play trail. But Geraldine O'Driscoll, a manager with the Society of St Vincent de Paul, which runs an early years service on the square, had said that wouldn't work well for them. Playgroups and early-years services that use the park [need a fenced-off small kids playground](https://www.dublininquirer.com/council-approves-plans-for-mountjoy-square-park-but-there-is-still-confusion-over-playgrounds-and-sports/), O'Driscoll said. “We use that park as our outdoor space; it is essential for us,” she said. Because small kids can run off in different directions. "The play trail won’t work for us,” she said. The new report keeps the play trail and promises a “dedicated toddler play zone” but doesn’t say whether the new play zone would be fenced in. ## What do people want? For all Part 8 planning permission applications, the council chief executive’s report “must contain a detailed list of the persons or bodies who made submissions or observations with respect to the proposed development", says a spokesperson for the Department of Housing. But the [council executive's report](https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/28225599-public-reports-pack-08062026-1815-monthly-council-meeting/?ref=dublininquirer.com) to the full council meeting in June didn't detail all the people who made submissions. The chief executive's report must also "summarise the issues raised within these submissions, including the response of the chief executive regarding same”, the department spokesperson also said. The chief executive's report back in June did give a summary of submissions, and executives' responses to those. “The most common themes across responses were a desire for improved maintenance and cleanliness of Mountjoy Square Park,” says the report. “Overall, the main trends are strong support for redevelopment, a desire for improved accessibility and amenities (especially a café/tearooms), enhanced safety, preservation and expansion of sports facilities, and a call for higher-quality, more context-sensitive landscaping,” it says. Some councillors wanted to see the actual submissions for themselves. Speaking in July, Social Democrats Councillor Cat O’Driscoll said that she was initially refused access to the majority of the public consultation submissions sent in to the council, on data-protection grounds. Just five of 196 submissions were loaded up to the council's planning portal in February and March of this year. Green Party Councillor Janet Horner said she pushed on the issue too, which resulted in the remainder of the public consultation submissions being uploaded on the Saturday before the full council vote, on Monday 8 June. This week,reviewing the 196 submissions shows that the most common themes by far were support for the restoration of the park in line with its Georgian heritage, and objections to the plan on the grounds of loss of sports or playground facilities. Seventy-one submissions (about 36 percent) were mostly in favour of the council's plan. Many of these were passionately in favour of the restoration of the Georgian heritage. Some of those added ideas for tweaks. Eighty-three submissions (about 42 percent) were mostly opposed to the plan. Most of these were concerned about the reduction of sports facilities and elimination of the playground. Some of them said they supported the redevelopment of the park, but that they were against the plan as it was proposed. Eighteen submissions were mixed, noting aspects of the plan they liked and other aspects that they didn’t like. Fifteen of those also expressed concern about the loss of playground space and/or sports facilities in the park. Twenty-four responses were unclear, irrelevant or difficult to categorise, including some that referred to other correspondence that was not included in the summary. Several raised concerns about crime, drug use and anti-social behaviour in the park, but didn't say whether they thought the proposed redevelopment would help or hurt.