Developer wins appeal against decision to refuse
A DEVELOPER has won an appeal against South Dublin County Council’s decision to refuse permission for 98 residential units in Rathcoole.
An Bord Pleanála has overturned the local planning authority’s decision and granted Cavan Developments Limited’s plans for Rathmill Manor in Tootenhill, Rathcoole.
Plans consist of 51 houses, 37 apartments and 10 duplex units.
The housing aspect of the plans consist of 23 three-bed mid terrace houses and 28 four-bed semi-detached houses.
The apartments and duplexes will be arranged across four blocks ranging from three- to four-storeys with associated balconies/terraces.
There is provision for bicycle parking, 29 car-parking spaces, bin stores and plant in Block A, which has 24 one-bed, 15 two-bed and four three-bed units.
Block B will provide three one-bed and three two-bed units while there is provision for four one-beds and four two-beds in Block C.
Three two-bed apartments, three two-bed duplexes and three three-bed duplexes are in the plans for Block D.
Proposals show 154 surface level car-parking spaces, bicycle parking and bin stores with a vehicular access point from Kilteel Road, from the existing development at Rathmill Manor.
Landscaping includes a pedestrian bridge, “home zone sectors”, boundary treatment and all associated site works in the proposals.
In June 2021, South Dublin County Council refused permission based on nine reasons.
In their appeal to An Bord Pleanála (ABP), Cavan Developments presented two options; Option A – appeal the scheme – or Option B – an alternative scheme.
They provided supplementary information in what would have been subject of a further information request had it been requested for Option A.
In the revised scheme, Option B, the layout presented a reduced density layout of 31 units per hectare and 16 percent open space in comparison to 35 units per hectare and 14 percent open space in in the application.
This was in response to the local planning authority deeming the plans to be of “inappropriate density” on a “constrained site leading to overdevelopment”.
Another reason for refusal was that the layout does not comply with the best practice for delivering a sustainable community by virtue of inadequate open space, poor access arrangements, poor layout of communal areas and a lack of details around the integration of existing green infrastructure.
The developer refuted this reason, believing both options they present provide a sustainable residential density layout which make “best use” of new residential zoned lands and asked the Board to reconsider the Architectural Design Statement and Landscape Design Report.
It states in the appeal that the “predicted” poor residential amenity standard of the residential scheme with no supporting daylight or shadow analysis, where issues of overlooking are likely to occur was another reason for refusal.
The developer was of the belief that these concerns were “not evidenced by the planning authority”.
On March 4, 2022, ABP took the decision to overturn the original decision and granted permission subject to 23 conditions.
The Board granted planning permission with the view that the development be carried out in accordance with the plans and revised plans as laid out in Option A.
A lot of the conditions were relating to particulars around items such as the naming scheme, associated facilities, finishes, restricting first occupancy to individual purchasers, providing electrical vehicle charging points, construction management plan, landscaping and drainage arrangements.