Chartered Land’s Lansdowne Place development

Kitty Holland, in The Irish Times, reports:

The developer behind an exclusive new housing development in Dublin will not be providing any social housing on-site.

In the move, approved by Dublin City Council, Chartered Land developments has bought a block of apartments in Ringsend for social housing rather than provide such housing at its prestigious new Lansdowne Place development of apartments and penthouses in Ballsbridge.

… Up to 2015, under Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 developers had to provide 20 per cent of units in a development to the local authority at a reduced rate for social housing. Developers could, however, make a financial contribution or provide land elsewhere to the council to fulfil their Part V obligations.

Amendments to the Act in 2015, intended to end this practice of developers “buying their way out” of the Part V rules reduced the Part V requirement to 10 per cent but also removed the “buy-out” options.

There is a provision, however, in the amended regulations that developers may, “subject to the agreement of the planning authority”, instead “transfer…units on site or off site” to the local authority.

…Housing analyst Lorcan Sirr said while he could understand the “pragmatism” of the council’s approach, “it shows how fluid a concept ‘social mix’ really is”.

“It seems to be absolutely crucial in poorer places like O’Devaney Gardens, but not so in Ballsbridge. It also throws into sharp relief the consequences of the State relying on the private sector to provide social housing it should be providing itself.”

Developer not providing social housing at Ballsbridge site (Kitty Holland, The Irish Times)

Pics: Chartered Land

Related posts:

They Would Have Needed A Ladder This Just Dauphine ‘Say Sorry’ I Have To Return Some Videotapes

47 thoughts on “Social Fix”

  1. Charger Salmons

    I don’t see any problem with this while still allowing developers to fulfill their legal obligations.
    Why should a developer risk devaluing their investment in a high-end site with social housing that inevitably brings with it the usual associated problems.
    It seems to me eminently sensible to provide the 10% in an area where Wayne and Waynetta would feel more at home.
    It’s the reason why halting sites aren’t located in prestigious addresses.

    1. Killian G

      You are a good honest and decent man, Charger Salmons. You say it like it is. I bet you have cojones like melons.

    2. Nigel

      While I couldn’t give a damn about your affected social snobbery and the value of high end sites can kiss my low end site, social housing as part of luxury developments usually lead to social housing the people who need social housing can’t afford. However the 10% social housing charge tends to vanish into the maw of the various local authorities with no housing to show for it. That whole thing turned into the usual unenforced regulation scam everything associated with building in Ireland turns into.

        1. Nigel

          Yeah. People in social housing deserve nicer neighbourhoods than ones filled with snobby jerks obsessed with the property values of their shoddily built luxury apartments, one downturn away from negative equity and one safety inspection away from enforced eviction.

        1. Charger Salmons

          Nah,unlike Ireland we don’t give in to pressure from the French and Germans to re-run our referendums until there’s the correct result.
          Enjoy paying back the €44billion you still owe for bailing out the bond-holders after being told to by Frau Merkel and that €3.4billion you still owe HMG.
          500 million big ones every six months still being sent over to Blighty.
          It’ll help pay for the shiny new blue passports.
          Pip pip !

        2. Killian G

          Would not be so sure. When the rest of Europe wakes up and smells the fresh air and senses the pleasant calmness of a Brit-free EU – no drunken louts rampaging across the civilised continent – I shouldnt wonder that we’ll all realise it was for the better all along. Thats when the door will be bolted and theyll be told fupp off back to their miserable sink estates with their bad teeth and mucky food.

    5. realPolithicks

      “social housing that inevitably brings with it the usual associated problems.”

      It’s good that you don’t have any preconceived notions about people who live in social housing, you seem like a very charitable sort of person.

      1. Patrick

        Here’s pre conceived notion. If I spend €900k on an apartment, I don’t want someone next to me paying €69 a week for the same apartment. Now if you think I should, that shows what a messed up and dare I say dangerous sense if social justice you have.

  4. Paul

    Seems fair. If I worked hard for years and saddled myself with burdensome debt to pay for one of these, I wouldn’t be too happy about my neighbour getting it for much cheaper or nothing

    1. Charger Salmons

      It’s like the irony of the survivors of the Grenfell Tower fire complaining they still haven’t been found new accommodation in the most expensive borough in London despite being offered alternative social housing a few miles away.
      And many of them asylum-seekers who should be grateful they’re even allowed in a country which is obliged to find them accommodation by law.

      1. kellma

        I see where you are coming from. I can personally say it would irk me that I am paying hand over fist and working my proverbial off to be able to do so, only to see someone who expects someone else to get them out of bed because they can’t even be bothered to do so, live it up beside me.
        HOWEVER, it also irks me that they make these provisions and bleat on about stopping ghettos and supporting social mixing when really they are just not doing that. It is all a load of smoke and mirrors and I am so tired of that.

        1. Nigel

          In terms of high-priced property you’d have way more to be concerned about than your neurotic, resentful, envy-feuled fantasies about people poorer than you.

          1. Patrick

            To be fair Nigel I suspect the envy is in the other direction. Case in point, your disgust and distaste for anyone who has managed to acquire wealth is evident and obvious by the way you speak of them in all your contributions on this article. This is why you’ll most likely always be poor. You equate wealth to being an bottomhole. Isn’t this the same sort of pre-conceived bigotry that you would accuse the rich of?

        2. Patrick

          Yes but the reality is it only takes one or two really bad neighbours to mess up an entire estate or development. So the danger of opening up 10 to 20 percent of a development to those same disadvantaged individuals is much greater than the reverse. It’s easier to make a good neighbourhood bad than a bad neighbourhood good. It’s always easier to destroy something then to build it.

          1. Brother Barnabas

            okay so, one more chance

            i’ll be expecting more gratitude and graciousness next time, though

  5. Charger Salmons

    Anyway,it won’t be long now before the usual pride of red-bottomed monkeys arrive to metaphorically inspect each other’s posteriors in agreement.

    1. Go A Way

      Pride is the collective term for a group of lions.

      It’s embarrassing when we have to school you in your own language.

      1. Brother Barnabas

        in fairness to charger, he did acknowledge recently how the Irish took a crude, mechanical language and imbued with the charm, aesthetic and depth it lacked

      2. Charger Salmons

        You got me.
        Schoolboy error.
        Although in fairness it should be ” imbued it with .”
        And Nigel misspelled envy-fuelled above.
        So we’re all having a slack day today.

    1. Charger Salmons

      Unfortunately that’s not enough these days.
      You’ve got to prostrate yourself before the Twittersphere court of social justice and agree that working hard enough to afford a nice home is wrong.

    1. kellma

      Absolutely and I think we should go back to building the big grey tower blocks too….. all these great ideas that we were foolish enough not to recognize as such! Hey, we should even go one further and do what they do in the old eastern bloc countries and write big huge numbers on the sides of them.

  8. Andy

    The article also failed to note that the common charges/management fees for the Jurys site apartments are north of €5k p.a.

  9. Djin Genie

    Developers should have to provide equivalent market value elsewhere, not equivalent number of cheaper units, which is a racket. If they supply the equivalent market value, everyone should support it, because housing as many people as possible is the priority. It’s so wasteful to allocate the Part V obligation to a smaller number of luxury housing units when it could be invested in a greater number of standard units.

Comments are closed.