Mick Clifford: Knee-jerk objections stall home building

Labour Party TD, Aodhán Ó Riordáin, was a prominent figure in a campaign opposed to a planned development in the grounds of St Paul’s College adjoining St Anne’s Park in Dublin. He posted a tweet last month vowing to battle once again alongside local residents to challenge a new development plan.

Early last month, Labour party TD, Aodhán Ó Ríordán, posted a tweet about a proposed housing development in his constituency. “Residents are concerned about new application lodged for St Paul’s lands at St Anne’s Park. We have won every battle when it comes to St Anne’s & we intend to win this one too.”

The reference was to a previous application for a development in the grounds of St Paul’s College in Raheny on Dublin’s northside, adjoining St Anne’s Park. A campaign by local interests opposed that development.

The case went to the High Court where the local interests, including homeowners, won. Aodhán Ó Ríordán was a prominent figure in the campaign.

Now, here was the developer back again, presumably with a different plan, still intent on building homes. And here was Mr Ó Ríordán assuring residents that he would stand at the frontline of this battle once again and repel the enemy.

He didn’t specify what exactly might be objectionable about any new proposal, nor what specific concerns “residents” may already have. Arguably, the framing of his missive could prompt residents to get out and object now, just to be on the safe side.

The combatants in this kind of conflict are conveniently cast. On one hand we have the local residents, ordinary folk simply trying to ensure that their way of life is not negatively impacted on. Up against them is the developer, intent on bulldozing through plans to throw up houses and reap profits before moving onto the next greenfield site.

In such a milieu, Ó Ríordán is no different from the vast majority of politicians. Don’t look a gift horse bearing votes in the eye.

But what of the constituency which has absolutely no say whatsoever when proposals for housing are contested?

Those genuinely at the frontline of the housing crisis are renters, and young people — and not so young — forced to live with their parents. Are they ever consulted on the basis for an objection?

Do politicians who are asked to represent homeowners ever seek out those without homes for their views on a proposed development?

During the week, Micheál Martin urged people to “be careful” about objecting to proposed housing developments, saying it was taking too long for projects to get off the ground.

“We need to build more houses,” he said. “We need to get more building done as fast as we can.”

The Taoiseach’s party and Fine Gael bear the bulk of responsibility for the current housing crisis, but do homeowners have any obligation to think twice before objecting now that there is a chronic shortage of housing?

Nobody is suggesting that bad planning be ignored. But what about the objections based on little more than the prospect that a new development might impinge, even in the remotest sense, on what a homeowner may consider to be their quality of life?

Is the prospect of any change enough to raise objections just in case the change in question might leave those in situ discommoded to any extent?

Three objections

Three cases that have been in the news recently illustrate the basis on which some objections are being made even in the current crisis.

The Cork GAA county board is applying to develop a site for 320 homes in Kilbarry, on the northern fringe of Cork city.

The development is to be made up of semi-detached and terraced houses along with duplex units and apartments. Among the reasons for objections lodged with the planning authority are: “The privacy and security of my property will be compromised due to this development that is proposed”; “the size and scale of the proposed development is too big for the area … within 10km of this proposed development we currently have four other developments underway. These will add a further 4,000 units to the area.”

Another objection says “the development is seen by many as merely an exercise by the Cork GAA Board to service its debt”. So what if it is? What exactly has that got to do with whether or not more homes are built for those requiring them on this site?

In its objection, the Cork Environmental Forum has stated that is not appropriate as “it is being built at the most distant and isolated part of the community on a site furthest from public transport links and most difficult to access by walking and cycling”.

Hitting out at the scheme, the Forum stated “what we do not need now is a sprawl that erodes the very fabric of those communities and the sense of place that has evolved over centuries”.

Sure thing, but are areas like this, therefore, to be cocooned while a frantic building programme takes place elsewhere?

A proposal to develop 108 units for senior living on the grounds of Blackrock rugby club in the salubrious south Dublin suburb has received some choice objections. One called the proposal “visually intrusive, while another claimed that things were bad enough with street parking due to the presence of the rugby club but now there will be further blocking of footpaths with “potential loss of life”.

Yet another objector said the proposal would “wreck the place” and “create chaos”, while there was also the observation that the inclusion of 64 bicycle spaces was “blatantly contradictory” in a development for older people. 

So cycling is perceived by this homeowner to be beyond senior citizens capability and that’s enough basis for an objection?

Further along the south Dublin coast in Dalkey village, a company part-owned by Bono is has lodged a reported “hard-hitting” objection to a proposal for eight apartments on an adjoining site.

Clos Nua Ltd is developing the Tramyard site in the village into a retail and entertainment venue. The company got planning permission last year following stiff opposition from 48 different parties. Now, having secured its own future, it is objecting to its effective next-door neighbour who wants to build homes.

The development would “devalue” the Tramyard site, according to the objection, it is “unacceptable” and “represents significant overdevelopment that is entirely disproportionate for this small infill site”.

These are just a few examples in which the basis for objections might suggest that there is no emergency in the country over housing people. There may be other entirely valid reasons for objecting in these cases, but that is not the point.

What's your view on this issue?

You can tell us here

The provision to object to any proposed development is sacred in a democracy, and repeatedly it has been shown that occasions arise when the system fails to cry halt and it is left to citizens to fight on behalf of the common good.

There is, however, also a widespread practice in the country of homeowners — and businesses — objecting to housing on the flimsiest basis simply because development will mean change. That approach may well be acceptable in normal times. Unfortunately, we’re not living in normal times with regard to housing. Let’s be careful out there.