Cork student accommodation development  rejected over ‘substandard facilities’

The proposed development provided for the demolition of the former convent building and the construction of 42 apartments and 224 studio apartments.

The overall project would have provided a 450-bed, purpose-built student accommodation centre.

‘Out of character’

Cork City Council had rejected the project because of its excessive height and scale which would make it “visually overbearing and out of scale” with the character of the area.

In its ruling, An Bord Pleanála said it was refusing planning permission because the developers failed to provide “a satisfactory standard of residential amenity for the student population”. 

A report by an inspector with An Bord Pleanála said its location, quantity, and quality, were “unsuitable and inappropriate, excessive and disproportionate, and formulaic and substandard.” 

In particular, the board said it failed to comply with objectives for communal facilities and units such as cafés and convenience shops at ground floor level.

However, the board disagreed with the inspector’s view about the height of the buildings and claimed it was not excessive in the context of other buildings in the surrounding area.

The board noted that the developer had also proposed to omit the top floor of two of the apartment blocks to address concerns raised by the city council.

It also disagreed with the inspector over the calculation of the housing density on the site and said the degree of overbearing and overshadowing from the student accommodation scheme would be “acceptable.” 

Developer’s appeal

In its appeal, Lyonshall claimed there was an existing demand for student accommodation in Cork City but stressed that the development would not result in a concentration of such accommodation in the Model Farm Road area.

The company estimated there is an undersupply of around 1,468 bed spaces for students in Cork this year.

It also disputed the council’s calculations that the density of the scheme was 354 dwelling per hectare, claiming the true figure was 142 which was within guidelines.

Lyonshall also argued that the suggested lower densities on the site would be “economically unviable, unnecessary, and contrary to the principles of compact growth.” 

An Bord Pleanála also received 24 submissions from third parties including Woodlawn Residents’ Association which raised concern about the scale and excessive height of the development and its impact on other residences in the area.