An artist impression of some of the units at Stoney Hill in Rathcoole
Developer lodges appeal after 176 dwellings refused
AN APPEAL has been lodged by a developer against South Dublin County Council’s decision to refuse planning permission for 176 dwellings.
Developer Romeville Developments Ltd lodged plans for the development of a 5.8 hectare site at lands to the east of Stoney Hill Road and include lands at part of the existing, Peyton residential site to the west of Stoney Hill Road, Rathcoole.
The plans included the demolition of five existing dwellings and associated outbuildings on the site and the construction of a 176 dwellings on the site to the east of Stoney Hill Road.
Included in the planning was 100 duplex units and 76 houses with a mix comprising of 16 one-beds, 50 two-beds, 70 three-beds and 40 four-beds with detached, semi-detached and terraced units.
The house types include two storey and three storey typologies and the duplex units are three storeys in height.
Proposals included a total of 245 surface car parking spaces for the residential development (including visitor, accessible and EV charging spaces) comprising of 152 for the 76 houses and 93 for the 100 no. duplex units.
Bicycle parking comprising of 187 no spaces in total (including 3 no. cargo bicycle spaces) in sheltered bicycle stores.
In lodging their appeal, the develop said: “There are significant concerns with the shortcomings of the assessment of the application undertaken by the local authority,”.
They also went on to say: “The appellant is extremely disappointed that the local planning authority choose to issue a decision to refuse planning permission in lieu of a request for further information.”.
The council had refused planning for six reasons including in relation ecological impacts on the subject development site, a number of deficiencies with the proposal which relate to green infrastructure on-site, in relation to public open space and children’s play, the Traffic and Transport Assessment submitted with the application is not acceptable and would require revisions, there were a number of urban design concerns with the overall layout of the scheme and the proposed development has not been shown to have been designed with due regard to the adjoining Annex 1 woodlands and would materially contravene Policy.
