Bord Pleanála refuses permission for 686 units

Two fast-track planning applications comprising 686 residential units have been turned down by An Bord Pleanála due to shortcomings in the planning documentation lodged.

Earlier this year, Dwyer Nolan Developments lodged a Strategic Housing Development (SHD) application for 350 apartments for Santry, Dublin 9 with the scheme reaching to 14 storeys in height.

The proposal for the Chadwicks Builders Merchants site at Santry Avenue and the Swords Road faced some 65 local objections including one from co-leader of Social Democrats, Róisín Shortall.

The appeals board has ruled that the Dwyer Nolan plan materially contravened an aspect of the Dublin City Development Plan concerning the number of three-bedroom units and one-bedroomed units in the scheme.

Fort Motor Group puts showroom in Tallaght on the market for €5m

---

No social housing at Ires Reit’s new upmarket Dublin 4 development

---

Property group Iput spends €1m on giant digital screens for art in Dublin

---

Ardale launches chain of plant and tool hire centres

---

The scheme proposed 6 per cent to be three-bedroomed apartments while the city development plan specifies that a minimum of 15 per cent should be allocated to three-bedroom units.

The board refusal said it was precluded from granting planning permission as the statutory requirements concerning the submission of a material contravention statement had not been complied with in the planning application.

In a separate ruling, the appeals board has refused permission to Briargate Developments Newbridge Ltd for 336 units at Ballymany, Newbridge, Co Kildare.

The scheme is made up of 245 houses, 27 apartments and 64 duplexes.

The board said the applicants did not comply with the mandatory requirement to lodge an environmental impact statement (EIS) with the application as the proposed development site exceeded 10 hectares.

In the case of the Dwyer Nolan scheme for Santry, the inspector’s report by Conor McGrath leaves the door open for the developer to reapply for planning permission.

Mr McGrath did recommend refusal due to the lapse in the planning documentation but stated that the design and layout was acceptable and would “deliver a satisfactory standard of residential amenity for future residents [and] will not result in undue impacts on the amenities of the surrounding area”.