Plan for 80 houses at site of former Cork 'hydro' facility shot down by appeals board

The planning commission has refused permission for 80 homes at St Ann’s Hill in Co Cork, despite an inspector’s report recommending the development.

Cork developers OMD(C) Ltd had planned to redevelop the sloping site of the former St Ann’s hydropathic facility in Tower in to 55 houses and 25 apartments.

The ‘Hydro’, as it is known, was a medical water-treatment resort founded by Dr Richard Barter in 1843. It ceased operation after 100 years, and only fragments of buildings on the 11-hectare site remain, apart from five detached houses on the south-eastern part of the site.

OMD(C) Ltd bought the property in 2022, taking over from Hydro Estates Limited, which owned the site from 2018 and had failed to get planning permission to turn it into a nursing home.

Although the plans for the 80 homes received nine objections — from groups such as the Tower Community Association, Hydro Farm Allotments, and Blarney Castle Estate — Cork City Council approved the application in June.

Appealed permission

These same groups appealed the grant of permission to An Coimisún Pleanála on the grounds of scale, impact on the character of the area, environmental damage, and traffic implications. Several people said the site was more suitable for tourism and that a museum should be built. 

The central issue the commission considered was the density of the proposed housing, given the Cork City Development Plan stipulation of a minimum of 35 houses per hectare, and a target range of between 40 and 60 homes per hectare on greenfield sites in outer suburbs.

The development, at 17.3 dwellings per hectare, was “low”, the inspector noted, but was of “good quality and appropriate in this location”. He pointed out archaeological remains of a fulacht fia (cooking pit) and a protected structure as reasons why the development was restricted.

Commission decision

However, the planning commission decided “the cultural and landscape constraints inherent to this site would not constitute exceptional circumstances to deviate to such a significant extent from the recommended density ranges outlined in national, regional, and local planning policies”.

It found a significant portion of developable site area to the east and less-elevated parts of the site, which meant higher-density housing was possible. The commission said the development, if allowed to proceed, would “comprise an inefficient and unsustainable use of these zoned serviced lands” and issued an order refusing the grant of permission.