‘Serious concerns’ see SDDC refuse Cookstown development plans

‘Serious concerns’ see SDDC refuse Cookstown development plans

By Laura Lyne

SERIOUS concerns regarding block layout, height, design, open space, overdevelopment and internal floor areas were among the reasons for refusal for two mixed housing and commercial developments in Cookstown Industrial Estate.

As previously reported in The Echo, two planning applications for that were lodged as part of the Cookstown Regeneration and were refused permission by South Dublin County Council last week, but details of the decision were unavailable in time for print.

Cookstown developments refused

In its decision to refuse permission, the council said that the concerns with the proposed development would not be sufficiently covered by way of additional information, and that the applications would have to be refused.

The reasons listed included the development not complying with urban design criteria, making the development contrary to the Tallaght LAP.

A failure on the applicant to show that the development would not have a negative impact on the Luas was also listed as a reason, along with the size of the proposed apartments failing to meet the Sustainable Urban Housing guidelines.

The access road to one of the sites via Exchange Hall was also listed as a reason for refusal due to the ownership of the lands and the proximity of the access to Exchange Hall.

The lack of available frontage and overdevelopment of one of the sites was also given as a reason.

In its decision, South Dublin County Council said: “The planning authority has serious concerns regarding the proposed development and whilst it is noted that residential development is permitted in principle, there are a number of serious concerns regarding the proposal in its current format.

“In addition, it has not been demonstrated that the schools in the area can cope with the additional demand such a development would place on their services.

“In its current form, the proposed residential development would therefore represent a substandard form of development and would seriously injure the amenities of the area.”

Share This