An Bord Pleanála has given permission for two fast-track housing schemes for Co Kildare and Co Wicklow totalling 438 units.
The appeals board has granted planning permission to the Land Development Agency (LDA) for 219 residential units for lands at the former Devoy Barracks in Naas.
In a separate decision, An Bord Pleanála gave the go ahead to Capami Ltd for 219 units on a site at Enniskerry in Co Wicklow. Both schemes faced local opposition.
In the case of the proposal for the former Devoy Barracks in Naas, the decision is a reversal of a planning refusal issued for the site for 221 units in July 2021.
The proposed development of 42 houses and 177 apartment and duplex units will provide 46 housing units to housing association, Cluid.
Objectors had raised concerns over the density of the development and the height of the five-storey scheme.
The board inspector, Una O’Neill, concluded that the site is a large serviceable site within an established urban setting, which in planning terms is underutilised.
Ms O’Neill concluded the site “is suitable for high density development and higher buildings”.
She also found the proposed development “will not negatively impact on the character of the existing area, will add visual interest and will make a positive contribution to the skyline of the area”.
Ms O’Neill stated that “the proposed development will contribute to the sustainable and compact growth of the area”.
In relation to the SHD scheme planned for Kilgarron Hill, Parknasilloge townland, Enniskerry, board inspector, Colm McLoughlin concluded that the development is within the edge of the Dublin metropolitan area, is well placed to accommodate growth at the net density proposed of 30 units per hectare.
The scheme is made up of 16 one-bed apartments, 34 two-bedroom apartments, 34 three-bed duplex apartments, 49 terraced houses and 86 semi-detached homes.
Mr McLoughlin found that the proposed density complies with Government policy seeking to increase densities in appropriate locations and thereby deliver compact urban growth.
Objectors claimed that the proposals would have undue impacts on the amenities of neighbouring properties as a result of overlooking and overshadowing impacts.
However, Mr McLoughlin stated that he was satisfied that an excessive loss of privacy or direct overlooking would not arise as a result of the proposed development for neighbouring properties, given the predominant achievement of separation distances.
