Pat stops major development by his Dalkey home
PAT Kenny and his wife Kathy have won round one of their battle to stop a major development beside their Dalkey home. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council has refused planning permission to Bartra Capital Property for 19 apartments in three blocks ranging up to four storeys, five three-bedroom homes and two semi-detached houses on the 1.4-acre site.
The ruling represents a resounding victory for the Kennys and fellow locals; however, the battle may not be over yet as Bartra Capital, owned by developer Richard Barrett, now has the option of appealing the decision to An Bord Pleanála or lodging plans for a scaled-down development at the site.
The firm will be anxious to secure a return on the €3.1million paid for the Maple Tree House site, adjacent to the Kennys’ home, plus other sums for an adjoining strip.
In their 16-page objection, the Kennys suggested that grounds for refusal would be that the proposed development, because of its scale, height and design, would have an overbearing visual impact and be seriously injurious to the setting, amenity and appreciation of neighbour properties.
And in its comprehensive refusal, the planning authority echoed many of the reasons put forward by the Kennys. It said the proposed development ‘would seriously injure the residential amenities and depreciate the value of property in the vicinity and would thereby be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area’.
It said the height, bulk and scale of one proposed apartment block would result in overshadowing of the adjoining site, while another block could be visually dominant for some homes in the area.
The planners also said that if permitted, the development would set an undesirable precedent for similar developments in the area.
The Kennys had led the opposition involving 17 other locals.
The couple said their home, The Anchorage, abuts the proposed site. They opposed the plan on a number of grounds – density, scale and massing, design, traffic impact, and impact on trees and habitat and residential amenity.
One key concern was that neighbours in the new apartment development would be able to see into the couple’s bedroom and their daughter’s. They said ‘any roof terrace or window would be less than 15 metres from our daughter’s bedroom window and 19 metres from our bedroom window’, while the ground level of The Anchorage is 3.5 metres below the ground level of a planned duplex apartment block.
The Kennys stated: ‘On our outdoor dining patio, we would be facing a construction with a roof line some 11 metres above us, denying us light and privacy.’
The loss of light to their property ‘would be disastrous’, they said.
A range of other reasons for the council to refuse planning to the development were raised in the 16-page Kenny objection. They said the plan is ‘ill-thought’ and would result in the removal of several trees, which they said would be injurious to the amenities of the area and depreciate the value of property there.
Maple Tree House, standing on just under an acre, had been at the centre of a legal row in 2006, known as the Battle of Gorse Hill, when then owners, the late solicitor Gerard Charlton and family, went to battle with Kenny over a 0.2-acre rocky outcrop adjoining their homes. The dispute went as far as the High Court, but an agreement was reached in 2008 whereby the Kennys agreed to buy the plot of land in a deal, which, along with legal fees, reportedly cost €2million.
Consultants for Bartra Capital Property told the council that the seven houses would be modest in size for the area and either terraced or semi-detached, and that the 19 apartments would be generous in size and provide an attractive and sustainable alternative for many residents in the area, particularly ‘empty nesters’ wishing to downsize from the larger family homes but wanting to remain in the area.
They said the development would see an increase to density of around 43 units per hectare ‘which will deliver a more sustainable return on zoned, serviced and accessible land within an established suburban location’.
The applicants’ consultants stated that arising from a preplanning meeting, the principle of a residential infill development would be acceptable to the council and that a high-quality and appropriately scaled new development would add to the area.
‘Overbearing visual impact’ ‘Empty nesters could downsize’