Developers behind plans to construct a seven-storey, 364-unit build to rent apartment scheme on land at Terenure College are contesting the decision by Dublin City Council to refuse planning permission.
A subsidiary of developer Lioncor has lodged an appeal with An Bord Pleanála against the decision earlier this month to refuse planning.
The Carmelite order — which runs Terenure College and owns a substantial land bank at the school — had stated that the development would help secure the future viability of the college.
The plan by Lioncor — which also includes 21 houses — for the scheme at Fortfield Road, Terenure, comprises four apartment blocks rising to seven storeys that is made up of 15 studios, 166 one-bed apartments, 174 two-bed apartments and nine three-bed units. Some will be sold with the others rented.
Your EV questions answered: Am I better to drive my 13-year-old diesel until it dies than buy a new EV?
Police targeting of Belfast journalists exposes ‘lack of legal safeguards’ for press freedom
Leona Maguire: ‘I worked harder this year than any other year, it just didn’t show in the results’
‘People make assumptions about us’: How third level is becoming a real option for people with intellectual disabilities
The council refused planning permission after 240 objections were lodged against the scheme, citing transportation issues.
Lioncor firm 1 Celbridge West Land Ltd has now lodged appeal documentation just 12 days after the city council refusal.
The firm’s planning consultant David Armstrong, of Armstrong Planning, has told the appeals board that the scheme would address the housing shortage “by ensuring the delivery of comfortable, well-planned residential units in a mix of ‘build to sell’ and ‘build to rent’ apartments”.
He said the development “will deliver high-quality urban design and will contribute positively to, and integrate well with, the surrounding environment”.
The council turned down the scheme after concluding that, due to its design and layout, it would endanger public safety, creating a traffic hazard as a result of vehicular/pedestrian conflict. However, Mr Armstrong has argued that this ground for refusal was “without merit”. He argues that the proposed southern access arrangement does not endanger public safety “nor present a traffic hazard by way of a vehicular/pedestrian conflict”.
The council also cited inadequate provision for car parking in its refusal. Lioncor’s adviser says this is “not justified” but adds that the proposal “could be readily adapted without material changes to increase parking numbers should the board consider that necessary”.
Pointing to a number of positive findings in the city council’s planner’s report, Mr Armstrong contends the scheme would “provide an alternative to larger houses that dominate the surrounding area”.
