Bartra gets go-ahead for Boston Sidings high-rise scheme

Dublin City Council upholds decision to allow 10-storey development in Silicon Docks

The proposed Boston Sidings development. The appeals board has given the plan the go-ahead after it ruled the proposal would accord with national strategic planning policy and local planning policies

The proposed Boston Sidings development. The appeals board has given the plan the go-ahead after it ruled the proposal would accord with national strategic planning policy and local planning policies

 

Richard Barrett’s Bartra has received the green light for a new high-rise scheme of 200,000sq ft of office space at the Boston Sidings site in Dublin’s Docklands.

An Bord Pleanála upheld Dublin City Council’s decision to grant planning permission for the 10-storey development in Dublin’s Silicon Docks.

Mr Barrett’s Bartra is developing the site at Grand Canal Quay and Macken Street in Dublin 2 in conjunction with site owner CIÉ.

The proposal came before the appeals board after local resident Paula Kinsella told the board the height of 10 storeys overpowers the housing in Macken Villas and Macken Street generally.

Ms Kinsella said: “The overbearing height cannot be considered to balance with the residential zoning it adjoins.”

Ms Kinsella also contended that the light study lodged with the application “shows significant effects on a number of homes in Macken Villas”.

However the board has given the plan the go-ahead after it ruled the proposal would accord with national strategic planning policy and local planning policies and would not seriously injure the visual or residential amenities of the area or adversely affect the development potential of adjoining lands.

Safeguard

A submission to the board on behalf of Mr Barrett’s firm said construction-stage procedures and design measures were to be implemented to safeguard residential amenities.

However, in a response submission lodged with the board last month by Ms Kinsella, she stressed that the quantum of development and the scale, intensity and height was too great and that it was virtually impossible to protect the amenities of residential properties.

At the end of a 32-page report, however, board inspector Jane Dennehy recommended that planning permission be granted.