Re: Re: One Berkley court -132m Tower
Fine Gael press release in response to Sindo article:
Fine Gael Dublin South East Deputy Lucinda Creighton has lashed out at
the claim reportethis week that Sean Dunne has attempted to provide
social housing in Dublin 4 but has been blocked by Deputy Creighton.
â€œI am disappointed to see the Irish media capitulate to the sustained and
targeted PR onslaught that has been initiated by Mr. Dunne in recent
months as he attempts to push through his over ambitious development of
the Jurys site in Ballsbridge. The coverage has been more than one sided
and has omitted key facts which show that Mr. Dunne is not quite the
Robin Hood of Dublin 4 that he would have us believe.
â€œHere are the facts:
1. It is suggested that the 16 unit development proposed by Mr. Dunne at
Church Avenue, Sandymount is for social and affordable housing. In fact
the planning application makes absolutely no reference to social and
affordable housing whatsoever.
2. Mr. Sean Dunne has in fact applied for a certificate of exemption for
the Church Avenue development, which would absolve him of any obligation
to provide 20% social and affordable housing on the site as set out in
the Planning and Development Act 2000.
3. It is suggested that Mr. Dunne has committed to providing up to 80
social and affordable housing units in the Dublin South East area in
light of his planning application for the Jurys/Berkeley Court site in
Ballsbridge. However nobody has questioned to whom Mr. Dunne has made
this commitment? And on what basis? Under the Part V provisions of the
Planning Act, it is for the Local Authority to determine how and where
the social and affordable aspect of any development takes place. As far
as I am aware, Mr. Dunne is not an official of the planning department of
Dublin City Council. It is not for him to determine how these obligations
should be fulfilled.
4. Nobody has queried why Sean Dunne does not support the idea of social
and affordable housing being contained on site as part of the Juryâ€™s
development, rather than in another area. It is logical to conclude that
this is due to the hugely lucrative development of exclusive private
apartments at Jurys, which may be devalued to the detriment of Mr. Dunne,
if mixed with social and affordable housing.
5. It should also be noted that many of the residents who have opposed
the Church Avenue planning application have suggested that a social and
affordable housing element to the proposed Jurys development would be
preferable in the interest of real social integration, rather than
â€œI have no interest in precluding social and affordable housing in Dublin
4. In fact I welcome it, so that we can keep families and communities
together, supporting each other and living in the same area. Perhaps the
media should examine what inspires Mr. Dunne to shunt off social and
affordable housing from his exclusive D4 development in Ballsbridge, to
other less expensive parts of Dublin South East. Somehow I doubt it is
in the interests of either sustainable development or indeed the concept
of sustaining communities.â€