Residents of upmarket Johnny Ronan development will share a smart car
Published 02/08/2016 | 02:30
The residents of a new upmarket Johnny Ronan residential development in Dublin 4 will share the use of a communal smart car.
A company controlled by one of Ireland's best known developers, RGRE J & R Apian Ltd, has told Dublin City Council that a smart car "will be used by all residents of the proposed apartment scheme" after the Council sought clarification on the status of the smart car.
Planning documents filed by Mr Ronan's firm state: "It will be a communal car and its usage will be managed by the management company of the development."
Mr Ronan has continued on his comeback trail in the Irish property development scene with Dublin City Council giving the go-ahead for the residential development at the junction of Apian Way and Leeson Street Upper in spite of local objections.
The commitment to providing the car space for the communal car was made in documents lodged with the planning application.
Mr Ronan's firm had sought planning permission for 16 units.
However, the council has ordered that, what is likely to be the most expensive apartment - the fourth-floor penthouse apartment complete with a private garden - be omitted from the scheme in order to comply with the height policy of the Dublin City Development Plan.
The planning consultant representing Mr Ronan, John Spain, said the proposal will greatly improve the streetscape at this location and that the plan "represents a more efficient utilisation of this urban site and will improve the visual amenity and urban context of the area". However, some locals opposed the plan under a number of headings: traffic and parking concerns; impact on adjoining apartment block; and impact on adjoining residential amenity.
In its objection, the Upper Leeson Street Area Residents Association (ULSARA) argued that the plan represents overdevelopment of the site.
The objection states: "ULSARA would welcome the appropriate development of this currently vacant and poorly maintained site.
"However, we consider the current application to be overdevelopment of a restricted site and not in keeping with the established historic and architectural character of the area."