Bord Pleanala appeals on Oakway Homes New Abbey permission
.png)
Appeals have been lodged with An Bord Pleanala in relation to the planning permission granted to Oakway Homes for their proposed 180-home development at New Abbey Road, Kilcullen, writes Brian Byrne. The case is due to be decided by 6 October 2025.
A first-party appeal by the developer takes issue with 13 of the conditions attached by Kildare planners to the permission, while a third-party appeal by residents of Sunbury Close objects to both the overall design of the development and to the proposal to introduce a pedestrian-cycle link through their estate. A third appeal by Liam and Maureen Keogh was deemed invalid by the Bord.
The Oakway appeal submitted by David Mulcahy Planning Consultants refers to conditions which the applicant describes as 'very ambiguous, unreasonable, or entirely unworkable or enforceable' and which should be omitted or amended.
They include the requirement to lower the height of a four-storey commercial block, which the consultants submit is contrary to national planning policy on building height guidelines for urban areas.
A condition on the phasing of the development and provision of childcare facilities is described as ambiguous and unclear.
A tree and hedgerow bond of €50,000 for a duration of eight years is 'excessive and unjustified', according to the submission.
The developer wants a condition that includes a €1.5 million special development levy contribution towards the design and cost of a Relief Road objective to be removed entirely, being 'wholly unreasonable and unworkable' and 'legally impossible' to impose on the applicant.
A condition requiring the provision of a two-metre footpath towards the cemetery at McGarry's Lane, at an estimated cost of €325,000 to the developer, is described as 'unreasonable'.
A requirement to provide footpath works between the two New Abbey Road entrances to the estate, at an estimated cost of €141,000, is considered unfeasible both because of the road geometry and requiring access to lands not in the ownership of the developer.
The applicant also takes issue with the condition relating to the design of proposed permeability link(s), as being both 'highly ambiguous' and 'unreasonable', and that the 'highly likely' position of agreement with affected residents not being possible, will 'hold up the entire development' as the condition requires that the issue be resolved before any occupancy of the development. The developer also says that a further condition requiring them to liaise and cooperate with the local authority and third parties in the creation of safe routes for cycling and walking is 'unclear, vague, and ambiguous'.
The submission also says the developer should not be required to pay the full estimated €280,000 cost of an upgrade of the signalised junction at Main Street, when a similar financial requirement was not imposed on the planning permission given to Cross & Passion College for their school extension, a project that also recommended upgrades to the junction.
A condition requiring the developer to provide two new Toucan crossings on the R448 is claimed to be 'entirely unreasonable' on the basis that these are part of the overall Active Travel design for the Cross and Passion school, and that one is already in place as the existing pedestrian crossing at the Daybreak shop.
The developer also wants clarifications on two conditions requiring Road Safety Audit, and change to one about Surface Water Run-off. The removal of a timeframe in a Taking in Charge condition requiring a €360,000 bond lodged with the council is also requested because other conditions imposed make such a timeframe outside the applicant’s control.
The applicant also takes issue with the calculation of €1,407,471 as a Development Contribution, saying it did not take into consideration a 33 percent exemption for lands zoned Town Centre.
There's also a request to replace a condition on electric vehicle charging points, to remove ambiguity.
The third-party appeal by Sunbury Close residents was submitted by Marston Planning Consultancy. It states an opinion that the overall design of the development is 'poor' in position, size, and orientation, and amounts to an overdevelopment of the site. The submission raises issues with poorly considered phasing and inadequate public space, and seeks an overturning of the permission given by Kildare County Council, on the grounds that the development is contrary both to policies and objectives of the Kilcullen Settlement Plan and to proper planning and sustainable development of the area. If the Board is favourably disposed to granting the permission, the Sunbury Close submission asks that conditions are attached to reduce the number of units and provide a more appropriate layout, so as to achieve the required public space requirements of the County Development Plan, and that the pedestrian-cycle link to the estate be omitted.
The full appeals documentation can be accessed on Kildare County Council's planning portal.
Photographs use Policy — Privacy Policy
