Residents of several Castleknock estates united in their opposition to a shared living scheme have called on Fingal County Council to take a legal challenge against it.
A letter on behalf of residents of Talbot Court, Talbot Downs, Old Navan Road and Woodpark has been sent to the local authority urging its support in blocking the controversial development.
Bartra Capital Property was granted permission for a five-storey, 206-bed scheme on the site of Brady’s pub by An Bord Pleanala, against the advice of its own inspector.
On its website the company describes the build as an “all-inclusive, modern living with concierge services and added perks” scheme of communal living on the Old Navan Road in Dublin 15.
But politicians branded the decision to allow it “an outrage”.
Cllr Tania Doyle (Ind) said it ignored the democratic will of the people while Deputy Roderic O’Gorman (GP) said it was “the wrong model” for the site.
At a public meeting residents resolved to ask the council to take a legal challenge against An Bord Pleanala’s decision.
They warned if this fails, they will consider taking a judicial review.
They argued the proposal would set an undesirable precedent and be contrary to the proper planning and sustainable development of the area.
Dublin City Council is taking legal action against a residential scheme in Sheriff Street that was given the green light by the board under Strategic Development Zone criteria.
The letter from neighbouring residents states: “We feel the decision would be incongruous in terms of its design, height, bulk and form, would be out of character with the streetscape, would constitute overdevelopment of the site and would have a detrimental impact to the residential amenities of adjacent properties.
“The proposed development provides an inadequate design response to this sensitive infill site, would be of insufficient architectural quality and would seriously injure the visual amenities of the area.
“A key determinant for shared living is location and proximity to work, amenities and public transport. The site is not located in proximity to existing amenities and facilities and is not easily accessible from the employment centres to which it is intended the development would serve.”
Residents also claim the board has “erred” and will set a “dangerous precedent” if the decision is allowed to stand.