Green light for 97-bedroom ‘co-living’ block in Rathmines
Locals objected on several grounds including shared living concept, height and density
Rathmines House, 143-149 Rathmines Road Lower. File photo, Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill
Dublin City Council has granted planning permission for a 97 bedroom shared “co-living” apartment block at Rathmines, despite local concerns about the project.
Blondie Issuer DAC applied sought permission for 110 units in the change of use at Rathmines House from office use to accommodation in a project that would involve the addition of three floors to create a seven-storey building.
However, the council has trimmed that plan to six floors in the development at 143-149 Rathmines Road Lower in the interests of proper planning and to safeguard the visual and residential amenities of the area and of future occupants.
The individual bedroom units will vary in size, with shared kitchen, dining and living communal facilities on each floor level. In addition, on the ground floor, there will be reception, gymnasium, residents’ lounge and laundrette.
The council’s planning report said the development is considered acceptable and compliant with the guidelines on sustainable urban housing: design standards for new apartments.
Manahan Planners, consultants for the applicants, told the council the conversion and expansion of the disused office building – previously used by the College of Commerce – would create a high-quality residential development and contribute positively to the development of the Rathmines area.
Objections to the plan focused on the shared living accommodation concept. They said the plan would not create a sustainable community and that the height of the proposal was out of character.
Philip O’Reilly, of Grosvenor Place, Rathmines, said the application for “this prominent corner site is too high, too large, too dense and far too bulky a development for this location and would seriously detract from the character of the area”.
He argued that the plan would constitute significant overdevelopment of the site and would significantly detract from the setting of the area. He urged that the proposal should be refused “as it is wholly unsatisfactory and incompatible with the character and setting of the area”.