South Dublin residents are opposing plans for the development of 419 build-to-rent apartments and houses for a site close to Cornelscourt village.
Last year,Cornel Living Ltd lodged fast-track plans to An Bord Pleanála for the five-block scheme at a site north of Cornelscourt village. The scheme is comprised of 294 one-bed apartments, 111 two-bed apartments, seven three-bed apartment units and seven three-bed houses. One apartment block rises to 12 storeys.
A planning report lodged with the application, by consultancy Declan Brassil and Company, advises the appeals board “that the proposed development will be for long-term rental and will remain owned and operated by an institutional entity for a minimum period of not less than 15 years”.
The report states that the institutional entity will be a company associated with the applicant.
Cornel Living was refused permission in April 2020 for a previous 468-unit build-to-rent project on the same site. The Brassil report states that a comprehensive review of the design approach has been undertaken to address the specific reasons for refusal and ensure high levels of residential amenity, enhanced quality and quantity of open space and improved "massing" (impact) to the N11.
Submissions
However, more than 50 third parties have made submissions on the planned scheme. One such group – the Foxrock South Residents Association – represents the residents of nearly 200 houses in the nearby Cornelscourt Hill and Kerrymount Green estates.Its objection states that it is agreed that the unchecked spread of low-density suburban development is unsustainable, but planning consultant Fergall Kenny adds that "the solution is not the random dumping of high-density high-rise developments on to whatever random site becomes available within the existing outer suburbs".
On behalf of the Willow Grove Residents Association, Marston Consultancy argues that the density of the proposal, which leads to its height, scale and mass of development, "is completely incongruous with its setting and context".
The objection states: “Put simply, the site does not have capacity to absorb the scale of development proposed.”
Anthony Marston argues that the granting of permission would set a highly undesirable precedent and the gross overdevelopment requires the appeals board to conclude that permission should be refused on a number of grounds.
A decision is due on the application in April.
