Developer appeals Milltown build-to-rent planning refusal

Residents of Milltown in Dublin face a fresh challenge in preventing a planned 97-unit build-to-rent apartment scheme for a former Murphy & Gunn site in Dublin 6 from proceeding.

Local residents have claimed that the scheme by Charlemont Project Ltd will create "a ghettoised population", while Dublin City Council last month refused planning permission for the proposal across a number of grounds.

Now, Charlemont Project Ltd has made a fresh attempt to secure planning permission by lodging a first-party appeal against the council decision to An Bord Pleanála.

The scheme involves the construction of 48 one-bedroom and 49 two-bedroom apartments across three apartment blocks with one rising to six storeys at 9-14 and 11c Milltown Road, Milltown.

Evergrande bondholders threaten to sue after being blindsided by €1.9bn claim

---

CRH seen with €10.9bn ‘war chest’ after latest unit sale

---

Frascati Centre apartments and Kilkenny development get permission

---

CRH chief Manifold sets new Iseq record with €13.9m pay package

---

The council refused planning permission for the scheme after locals lodged more than 50 objections against it. Chair of the Eglinton Residents Association, Robin Mandal, told the council that the scheme would seriously injure the environmental, social and visual amenities of the area.

Advancing the case for the scheme when it was before Dublin City Council, planning consultant, John Spain said the site is appropriate for a build-to-rent scheme given its proximity to existing local amenities and good public transport.

‘Transitory population’

Milltown residents Mary Hennessy and Ton van Nuenen told the council the units proposed "will create a significant transitory population due to little variation of tenancy, or size of unit across the accommodations".

The two said “the effect of such a ghettoised population will be to create a significant disruption factor within what is a mature residential area”.

The contention that “a ghettoised population” will disrupt the local community was repeated by other residents who lodged similar objections.

In refusing planning permission, the council concluded that the proposed scheme would appear disproportionate and harmful to the visual amenities and character of the area due to its layout, scale and bulk.

The council also ruled that due to the scheme’s height, massing and its proximity to existing residential properties, the proposal would be overbearing to neighbouring occupiers.

A decision is due on the appeal in July.