Developer Noel Smyth has appealed the rejection of his plans for a 12-storey, 159-unit “build to rent” scheme over part of the Arnotts store in Dublin.
Mr Smyth’s Fitzwilliam Real Estate is challenging Dublin City Council’s rejection of the proposal, with his planning consultants, Tom Phillips & Associates, lodging an appeal with An Bord Pleanála.
The 159 units comprise 60 studios, 85 one bedroom apartments and 14 two bedroomed units.
The scheme involves the construction of a 12 storey over basement element fronting Williams’ Lane, a five storey element over Arnotts’ multistorey car park and a two storey element over Arnotts store.
The council refused the scheme on four grounds, including the City Development Plan’s general presumption against large scale residential developments which comprise 100 per cent built to rent units.
Síne Kelly at Tom Phillips said it fundamentally disagrees with that ground for refusal as national policy concerning the scheme has not been taken into account in the 2022-88 City Development Plan. She said there was conflict between the City Development Plan and the 2020 Apartment Guidelines and that the guidelines should take precedence for the assessing the proposed scheme.
Ms Kelly said there needed to be an acknowledgment of the unprecedented housing crisis that Dublin and Ireland finds itself in and that houses and apartments are not being built at rate that is required to meet a demand that is vastly outstripping supply.
“Build to rent development has the potential to accelerate the delivery of new housing stock at a significantly greater scale than currently experienced,” she said.
Ms Kelly contends that the scheme will provide a high quality residential development providing a residential mix that is much sought after in the area. She also note that it will provide 16 units to Dublin City Council for social housing.
Mr Smyth has ruled out reducing the scale of the proposal as it would have proven economically unviable, she said.
Ms Kelly has told the appeals board that the scheme was considered appropriate for the area “and it would not have an adverse impact on the historic character of the area”.
A decision is due on the appeal later this year.
