Appeal lodged over decision to refuse planning for apartment scheme at Bessborough

DEVELOPERS behind a proposed 92 unit residential development at Bessborough in Blackrock have lodged an appeal with An Bord Pleanála (ABP) in a bid to overturn Cork City Council’s decision to refuse planning permission.

Last November, MWB Two Ltd sought permission for the apartment scheme, which also included proposals for a creche, to be developed in two stepped buildings, ranging in height from five to eight stories.

Between 1922 and 1998, the Congregation of the Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, ran a mother and baby home at Bessborough.

Following an Oral Hearing last year, ABP turned down a separate application lodged by MWB Two Ltd for a residential development and creche at a site in Bessborough, stating that it was not satisfied that the site was not previously used as a children’s burial ground.

A spokesperson for MWB Two Ltd told The Echo in November that the current application pertains to a “separate site”.

In January, Cork City Council refused planning permission for the application.

It said that the height, scale, design and relationship of the proposed development to the historic landscape in which it sits, would result in “isolated residential blocks” in a protected landscape and would comprise “haphazard development” which it said would “detract from the character of the area which is designated as an Area of High Landscape Value in the Cork City Development Plan”.

Appeal

The appeal document submitted on behalf of MWB Two Ltd stated that the applicants were “disappointed” by the decision.

It stated that amendments were made to the initial scheme following pre-planning talks and that the proposal has regard to how it would fit in with two other apartment schemes proposed by a separate developer for lands elsewhere at Bessborough.

Included in the grounds for the appeal, MWB Two Ltd contends that the proposed development has “full regard to the planning history of the site and the evolving character of development in the area”, that it would not constitute haphazard development and would not result in isolated residential blocks in a protected landscape.

It also states that the height, scale, and design is appropriate, stating that “considerable time and attention has been paid to the development strategy for the subject site and overall lands”.

The case is due to be decided by late June.