LOCALS IN RAHENY and Clontarf who objected to plans for a development of almost 400 houses at a site adjacent to St Anne’s Park are to be given back fees paid to Dublin City Council, after the developer made a clerical error on the planning application.
New Generation Homes’ contentious plan to build 381 houses at the site fell at the first hurdle this week, after it emerged the wrong name had been used in the application to the local authority.
‘Crekav Landbank Developments Ltd.’ was entered on the bid, instead of ‘Crekav Landbank Investments Ltd.’.
The Council found:
“As the applicant stated is not considered a legal entity the application does not comply with Article 22 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2001 (as amended). The application is therefore considered invalid.”
New Generation Homes confirmed on Thursday evening that the application would be re-submitted.
However, in the meantime, anyone who objected to the development will have their €20 observation fee returned.
They’re being told they can make use of the fee again if they want to object to next application submitted by the developer.
This letter is being sent out by the Council:
The site in question encompasses playing pitches that were owned by the Vincentian secondary school St. Paul’s College, but which were sold earlier this year to New Generation Homes. It’s proposed a dedicated all-weather floodlit sports field for the school and a new sports hall would also be built.
There has been widespread public opposition to the plans from locals in the area, and an I Love St. Anne’s campaign has been launched online to encourage people to lodge their own objections to the scheme.
Minister and local Labour TD Aodhán Ó Ríordáin is amongst those opposed to it. The Dublin Bay North deputy said last week the plan was in breach of zoning regulations and that a development of this type was “excessive”.
New Generation Homes contends that the all-weather pitches and sports hall will be a resource for the community – however Ó Ríordáin argued in his letter to planning regulators that they “would not be fully accessible and open to the public”.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
have your say