Permission denied for €42m residential development in south Dublin

Developer failed to publish particular newspaper planning notice

Image of the proposed development at Stocking Lane in Ballyboden. Source: Digital Dimensions

Image of the proposed development at Stocking Lane in Ballyboden. Source: Digital Dimensions

 

An Bord Pleanála has denied plans for a €42 million residential development in south Dublin over the developer’s failure to publish a newspaper planning notice stating that the scheme contravenes a development plan.

The appeals board refused planning permission for the fast-track’ 131 unit Strategic Housing Development (SHD) application by MacCabe Durney Barnes Ltd, after stating that it was precluded from granting planning permission as the developer’s statutory requirements relating to public notices and the submission of a material contravention statement had not been complied with.

The proposal, made up of 59 apartment units, 51 duplex apartments and 21 houses at Stocking Lane in Ballyboden, within the foothills to the Dublin Mountains, faced strong local opposition.

In total, 49 parties made submissions, among them the Prospect Manor Residents Association, the Springvale Residents Association and the Ballyboden Tidy Towns Group.

The developer, in response to its Part V social housing requirements was proposing to sell 10 per cent of the units to South Dublin County Council for an indicative €4.2million, or an average of €323,306 each.

However, the appeals board has refused planning permission not connected with the merits of the scheme, but failures by the developer to carry out statutory requirements when a planning application materially contravenes a County Development Plan.

South Dublin County Council planners recommended that planning be granted and the board inspector in the case, Colm McLoughlin, found that the bulk and massing, detailed design and layout of the proposed development would be largely acceptable.

Mr McLoughlin stated: “The future occupiers of the homes would also benefit from a high standard of internal amenity and the proposal would contribute to the public realm.”

However, Mr McLoughlin recommended a refusal to the board as the applicant, in submitting the application, did not publish a newspaper notice stating that the application contains certain statements, including a statement where the proposed development materially contravenes a plan.

Mr McLoughlin also stated that the applicant did not submit a statement with the application addressing the issue of material contravention and indicating why permission should, nonetheless, be granted.

Mr McLoughlin stated that in the circumstances, the board would not have the jurisdiction to determine the jurisdiction.

An Bord Pleanála agreed with Mr McLoughlin and refused planning permission when stating that the statutory requirements relating to public notices and the submission of a material contravention statement have not been complied with.The board stated that as a result, it is precluded from granting permission.