The decision of a Castleknock resident to turn down a substantial cash offer in the face of a contentious apartment scheme has captured public attention. Mr. Barry O’Lone’s refusal, grounded in his objections to Bartra developers’ €30 million project, has stirred debate within the community and raised questions about the balance between urban development and residential concerns. This move has not only heightened tensions surrounding the proposed co-living scheme but has also brought into focus the intricacies of managing development projects in established neighborhoods.
Background on Resident’s Rejection
In light of the recent developments, the Castleknock resident’s refusal of the €100,000 offer from Bartra developers has sparked considerable attention and raised significant concerns regarding the proposed apartment scheme. The resident rejected the offer, intended to withdraw a court challenge against a co-living scheme, due to objections to Bartra’s new €30m apartment scheme on the same site. Over 20 parties, including the Concerned Residents group, lodged objections against Bartra Property (Castleknock) Ltd’s plans for a 56-unit apartment scheme. The rejection of the offer underscores the intensity of opposition to the development and highlights the complex dynamics at play between developers and local residents in the planning process.
Social Housing Obligation Details
The social housing provision in the proposed apartment scheme by Bartra Property (Castleknock) Ltd obligates the developer to allocate 10% of the units for social housing, with an indicative price tag of €2.7m on the five designated social housing units. This equates to an average price per unit of €541,776. Fingal County Council stands to benefit from this social housing provision, as mandated by Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2020. The allocation of social housing units aims to address the pressing need for affordable housing in the area. This aspect of the development has garnered attention and underscores the importance of addressing social housing requirements in new construction projects.
Planning Application Overview
Upon examination of the planning application for the apartment scheme submitted by Bartra Property (Castleknock) Ltd, key details regarding the proposed development emerge. The scheme comprises 23 one-bedroom and 33 two-bedroom apartments, totaling 56 units. A planning report by Thornton OConnor Town Planning underscores the economic benefits of the development, emphasizing the critical need for housing. Additionally, the report highlights the creation of a high-quality living environment and the generation of job opportunities during the construction phase. The development plans aim to provide 10% of units for social housing, aligning with the requirements of Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2020, with Fingal County Council set to benefit from this provision.
Resident’s Objections and Allegations
Examining the objections and allegations raised by Mr. Barry OLone sheds light on the controversy surrounding Bartra Property’s apartment scheme in Castleknock. Mr. OLone has reiterated claims of being offered €100,000 by Bartra, allegedly to withdraw his High Court judicial review. His objection primarily revolves around the perceived adverse effects the proposed development would have on the residential area. Specific concerns highlighted include the proximity of the development, its height, and architectural style. Of note is an alleged letter from Bartra attached to Mr. OLone’s objection application. These objections and allegations add fuel to the already contentious debate surrounding the proposed apartment scheme in Castleknock.
Developer’s Response and Public Scrutiny
Following the objections raised by residents and concerned parties, Bartra Property Ltd has refrained from providing an official response to the public queries regarding their apartment scheme in Castleknock. Despite public scrutiny and mounting opposition, a Bartra spokesman declined to comment on the queries and has not issued an official statement addressing the objections raised. The lack of response has fueled further debate and speculation surrounding the proposed development, with various stakeholders closely monitoring the situation. As the controversy surrounding the apartment scheme continues to garner public interest, the absence of a formal response from Bartra has left many questions unanswered and added to the contentious nature of the project. The developer’s silence in the face of criticism has only intensified the scrutiny and resistance towards the plans.
Conclusion
To summarize, the rejection of the cash offer and ongoing court challenge by the Castleknock resident have brought attention to the concerns surrounding the proposed apartment scheme by Bartra developers. The opposition from multiple parties, including the resident, underscores the intense scrutiny of the project’s impact on the residential area. The developer’s response and the public reaction highlight the complex dynamics at play in this contentious development situation.
