Building refusal on Terenure College lands being contested
Refusal of permission to construct apartment scheme on former playing pitches of Terenure College is being contested by developer

Building refusal on Terenure College lands being contested

DEVELOPERS behind plans to construct a seven-storey, 364-unit build-to-rent apartment scheme on land at Terenure College are contesting the decision by Dublin City Council to refuse planning permission.

A subsidiary of developer Lioncor has lodged an appeal with An Bord Pleanála against the decision earlier this month to refuse planning.

The Carmelite order, which owns the site and runs Terenure College, says the sale of former playing pitches at the Fortfield Road side of the school, will help secure the future viability of the college.

The plan by Lioncor – which also includes 21 houses – for the scheme at Fortfield Road, Terenure, comprises four apartment blocks rising to seven storeys that are made up of 15 studios, 166 one-bed apartments, 174 two-bed apartments and nine three-bed units. Some will be sold, with the others rented.

The council refused planning permission after 240 objections were lodged against the scheme, citing transportation issues.

Lioncor firm 1 Celbridge West Land Ltd has now lodged appeal documentation.

The firm’s planning consultant David Armstrong, of Armstrong Planning, has told the appeals board that the scheme would address the housing shortage “by ensuring the delivery of comfortable, well-planned residential units in a mix of ‘build-to-sell’ and ‘build-to-rent’ apartments.”

The council turned down the scheme after concluding that, due to its design and layout, it would endanger public safety, creating a traffic hazard as a result of vehicular/pedestrian conflict.

Mr Armstrong argues that the proposed southern access arrangement does not endanger public safety “nor present a traffic hazard by way of a vehicular/pedestrian conflict.”

The council also cited inadequate provision for car-parking in its refusal. Lioncor’s adviser says this is “not justified” but adds that the proposal “could be readily adapted without material changes to increase parking numbers should the board consider that necessary.”

Share This