Affordable Housing in Cork

That’s fascinating, and maybe a bit sickening.

Are you saying that the money the developers saved/made by not having to include the 20% in their schemes was targeted by the City Manager?
Or is it more sinister than that, i.e. are you saying that the City Manager deliberately and knowingly facilitated the developers’ avoidance of the 20% on condition that they fund the 2005 celebrations?

Either way, the 20% mechanism has now been thoroughly undermined country-wide, from this behaviour in Cork to the rezonings in Co. Laois, and I think it’s a great shame.

@madisona wrote:

During the last few years Cork City Council has steadfastly refused to implement a government provision which allows local authorities to acquire 20% of housing in new developments for resale as affordable housing. Instead the City Manager and his officials have used an opt out clause in the legislation to give exemptions to developers in exchange for small payments. This policy has saved the developers tens of millions and led to Cork having the largest affordable housing waiting lists in the country.

It has now emerged that a company called “Cork 2005 events” has received millions of euro in donations from the same developers that have benifited from the decision to exempt them for the affordable housing provision. The City Manager who sits on the board of this company has admitted that he has personally approached developers for donations.

So how have our elected officials reacted to this clear conflict of interest. During last Mondays Council meeting Cllr Máirín Quill tabled a motion calling for the creation of a “roll of honour” to thank the developers for their selfless donations.

This subject matter has been raised and answered before –

however I wish to note a number of issues herein…

First off, Councillor Barry’s suggestion, whether intended or not, was out of line. His implication posited a correaltion between the contributions of development/construction companies to Cork2005 and outcomes in planning or prospective planning decisions by CCC – by and large. This not only insults the character of City Manager Joe Gavin (whose signature ultimately signs the dotted line on a grant or refusal), but indeed that of the broader City Management team. Of private sector donations, indeed, a large proportion of contributions to Cork2005 did arise from development/construction firms – and I agree with Councillor Quill that such businesses are deserved of thanks. These firms stepped up to the plate and provided vital funds and services in the provision of Cork2005 – whether that was O’Flynn Construction’s sponsorship of the Short Story Competition, Bowen Constructions backing of 2 prominent exhibitions at the Crawford Art Gallery, Frinailla’s sponsorship of the Inferno event at the MAS, O’Callaghan Properties year-long hosting of a series of art exhibitions at 21 Lavitts Quay, John F. Supple Ltd’s support for the Architecture Seminars and Exhibition…the list goes on. Is it that Councillor Barry believes such sponsorship and financial should have been refused from specifically development/construction sectors? I would be interested to hear how he believes Cork2005 should have beeen organised financially and also how the year would have progressed w/o the participation of such aforementioned businesses.

Secondly, your post seems to imply Cork City Council are not interested in aiding S/A lists? Nor that they have made any efforts in its rectification?

It should be noted that Part V of the Planning & Development Act 2000 has been tackled in the Cork region – should you argue this, I suggest you take a stroll over to O’Brien & O’Flynn Limited for example and argue the case, I believe they would beg to differ. Furthermore, developers have made efforts in S/A provisions – for example the Montgomery/Kenneally Partnership in conjunction with CCC and Barry Supple are actively engaged in 2 large schemes which provide substantially for S/A uses – at Cogan’s Field and Chapelfield. Fleming Construction and Coleman Brothers Developments in co-operation with CCC are embarking on plans for 400 new homes off Shanakiel of which the vast majority is being allocated to S/A uses. CCC have embarked on their own initiatives such as that at the Glen, utilising vital funding in part provided through finance raised from Development Contribution fees. Also, it is worth noting that many S/A schemes have been jeporadised by some of our own elected representatives such as they at Churchfield and Togher – schemes Joe Gavin actively campaigned to see realised. The actions of some councillors such at the imposition of a suburban height cap – of which Councillor Barry was among them – do not help in stabilising market values and adding more people onto S/A lists.

Furthermore, the private sector are actively engaged in solutions to S/A lists. I recognise it is an issue and yes it has to be addressed. Private schemes for housing 100K or less for a 2-bedroom 850sq ft unit for example are under evaluation and will come on stream within the foreseeable future.

@madisona wrote:

I was not referring to Cllr Barry’s insinuations which are slightly different from mine.

The premise of what you infer runs along the same lines however – implying alterior motives. Mr. Gavin, as a board member of Cork2005, indicated that he himself approach a number of the referenced businesses himself. I think the points you make a ill-founded and dangerous. A for provision, strategy with the City Council has regulalry adopted co-operative provision agreements. For example, the Cogan’s Field project provides 50 out of 157 units for social use – this is a much better provision rate (32%) than Part V allocations. Remember the Act allowed for variance in adoption rates – for example Fingal County adopted S/A provision levels of 15%, CCC adopted 20% – however given the nature of developments in the city, many of these projects on the grounds of viability and context, are perfectly within entitlement to exemption – see the link below, Section C…

http://www.rcmck.com/downloads/rcmck2.doc

…for example. talks are on-going with O’Flynn Construction regarding the allocation of land to CCC following on from the grant to Eglinton Street. This active pursuance by CCC in the acquisition of land. The quote below is taken from the Planning Grant on the project and as I understand, discussions have proceeded.

“Item 4 Social and Affordable Housing

Discussions are on-going with our Housing Directorate as to the method of compliance with social and affordable housing provision. Our Housing Directorate are agreeable to a planning condition requiring further agreement regarding same.

Furthermore, other activities are under way which will provide greater S/A provision than attainable under Part V – such as Shanakiel with approx. 57% being made available for S/A use. Where this development to proceed as a standard private development subject to Part V policy, only 80 of the 404 or so units proposed would be made available for S/A uses. Similar activities are underway at ChapelField and in Gurranabraher with another private developer. The general nature of large-scale residential developments such as Eglinton Street, Water Street, Lancaster Quay etc in the city area are perfectly entitled to determine Section 96 agreements subject to negotiation. I believe CCC, through this active co-operation initiative will in the long-run provide a greater number of S/A units available than through Part V activities given the extent of appropriately eligible development in the city centre and their associated nature.

Lex-
Thanks for the detail on those projects. Certainly balances the picture for those of us outside Cork.
However, as far as I know, Part V was designed to avoid large scale social housing developments, with 20% set as the upper limit. So I’d have concerns about the 57% (and to a lesser extent the 32%) provision- the whole ‘ghettoes of the future’ argument (this isn’t meant as reflection on the residents, lest anyone misunderstand it).
Also, you mention S.96 agreements that developers are entitled to enter into, but isn’t the default option (where agreement hasn’t been reached) the transfer of land rather than of money? And the best way of avoiding undue social segregation is the transfer of completed units, I believe.

Sorry if this has been covered in the Cork thread, but I tend only to browse it as it seems to deal predominantly with new developments, and stories like this can sometimes get buried. I think they can benefit from separate threads where they are of interest to the general population (not that we don’t care about Cork!).

Interesting thread. To be honest I think it’s a disgrace that this act wass implemented in the first place. It’s simply a method of getting private developers to do the council and corporations dirty work. Noel Dempsey at the time thought it would decrease the waiting list for social and affordable housing but it’s actually grown cos when you put it in perspective, developers have to make money and if they are getting the agricultural price for the land and not the market price for the land then guess who has to suffer-the people buying private dwellings… suprise suprise.. and what in turn does this do since the price of private dwellings goes up-more people are forced off the property ladder and onto waiting lists for social and affordable housing-talk about a vicious circle.

the government may feel that it promotes a balanced society…. ya right-a balanced society is not possible. poeple who are forking out close to a million € for a house are obviously going to be pretty annoyed when their neighbour a few houses down is getting their house for free. I know I would be.

It’s an imperfect system for sure, but I think your reaction is a bit over the top, not to say ill-informed.

Nobody is getting a house for free that wouldn’t otherwise qualify for one in the absence of this system. And the ‘affordable’ ones aren’t free at all, not to mention that million euro houses generally don’t get offered under such a system.
If the council was to provide the housing, it would be paid for by the taxpayer. Where else do you think the money would come from?
The list has grown because developers have been by and large unwilling to play ball, and councils are bending over backwards to facilitate them (not planners, but Councillors- clientilism how are ya!).
The law states that the landowner/developer is entitled to market price for the land, not agricultural price as you think.

I agree that the system has its flaws, but the ones you highlight aren’t the ones I see.

For my money, a better system would be that local authorities have first option on land purchase at existing value. They could then sell it on to a developer at a higher price after rezoning (the price the developer would have paid anyway if the land had been rezoned prior to initial sale). Only difference is that the profit goes to the Council, who could then use the funds for infrastructure etc. Perhaps a % more than ag value could be paid to the original owner so they don’t feel cheated, and ultimately the windfall is shared more equitably.

CAREFUL….better not to light a fuse we may not be able to but out !

@madisona wrote:

Lexington, you mention a multitude of future developments in your posts but do you know whether Part V agreements have been concluded for any of them? Has development begun on any of them? Is there a completion date on any of them? Are any of them proposed government sustaining progress projects on state land?
phrases such as “under evaluation” “talks are on-going” “Discussions are on-going”etc have been used for years.

I agree with you on the suburban height cap. However I was under the impression that this provision was non binding and could be ignored by the Council.

If there is anything in my posts that is factually incorrect please let me know

The developments I’m referring to are predominantly private initiatives in co-operation with Cork City Council to provide S/A housing supply. These developments are progressing Cogan’s Field (along the Boreenmanna Road) is under construction with John F. Supple Ltd on site, a tower crane was erected over the development not so long ago. 50 units are to be provided for Social Use.

Approx. 404 units are scheduled for construction early in the New Year by Fleming Construction and Coleman Brothers Developments, over half of these will be allocated for S/A uses.

Proposals at Gurranabraher and ChapelField are awaiting Council approval. A further private project at Togher sought combined S/A provision but was refused by Councillors when put to them – the reasons behind this are for another post.

It is widely believed that of the 975 or so new homes to be provided by Manor Park Homebuilders as part of the Horgan’s Quay redevelopment, Part V actions will be implemented providing something in the region of 200 new S/A homes of very high quality.

As for payments subject to Section 96 discussions, policy calls for land or monetary substitution – discussions are on-going with parties, but I can’t give you the precise status on those discussions as frankly I don’t know day-to-day.

CCC strategy has been to provide greater numbers of units beyond Part V provision – they have done this in co-operation with the Private Sector and substantial progress has been made as evident by such exampled projects. As I said earlier, S/A provisions are substantially higher than what could be achieved through Part V. As for comparisons between Fingal County and Cork City Council – one must remember development progressions between these regions. Fingal County as part of the greater Dublin region has been subject to large-scale development opportunities over a longer period and at a larger, more frequent scale than Cork City Council. Since the original incarnation of the Act in 2000, it’s implementation into law and the subsequent amendments in 2002, Fingal has been exposed to development progressions allowing the region attain a critical mass at a sooner date and quicker implementation of Part V policy. Cork, it may be said is in the throws of such development expansion now – but it really only kicked in big time since (arguably the foundations for its boom were laid earlier) – LA policy has been to encourage the right investment (and this type of investment has to appeal to the right market – certain policy implementation tarnishes this), to do this, a degree of leeway has to be afforded for the ‘break’ point to be achieved (that is, a noted quantity of sustainable development which promotes further investment) – we are reaching that now. Once this ‘break’ has been achieved, CCC are in a more comfortable position to enact further policy in addition to its existing ones – this includes Part V. I think you will see greater levels of enactment in this area over the coming future – however I also believe we will see greater private participation. There is a growing demand for such housing, and where an opportunity exists, you can be sure business will follow – and trust me, it is.

Make no mistake, I believe in terms of sustainability, Part V is not a bad policy – but it has to be applied on the right terms and with balance considering a view to structured urban growth.

You have to also consider, why are the lists growing??? The fact is S/A lists are a blend of socio-economic backgrounds, each as valid as the other – furthermore, those on the list today weren’t necessarily on the list last year. This is consequent of rising market values outpacing some wage growth – as a result, the young couple who were looking at buying a 3-bedroom semi last year are no longer looking at the same house as it has now become beyond their means. These a respectable, moderate income individuals who are now left with little option but to apply themselves to the list. Consider this with respect to the following…

…ctesiphon with relation to the purpose behind Part V, indeed, the policy is formulated with the view to aiding the prevention of ‘ghetto’ formulation. I support it on this level. With application to developments I mentioned earlier – like Cogan’s Field for example, I think you’ll agree that 32% provided for social use is still a pretty acceptable level, and is undoubtedly better than the 20% under Part V. Over 100 other units are dedicated to private marketing, the balance should still be sufficient. The same percentages, give or take, are proposed for Chapelfield and the other nearby venture. As for Shanakiel, I think what’s important here is the setting context – it exists within a ‘buffer’ region, generally the immediate surrounds are of a middle-to-high income bracket with lower variations further north. Irrespective, I don’t believe you can judge the character of a person based on income (don’t worry I’m not saying that was implied, just noting it! 😮 ). The large proportion of S/A provision as part of this development is broken between social and affordable, the precise division doesn’t hit the noggin’ now but I have the figures elsewhere and if I can remember (which would be a feat) I’ll get back to you on this – needless to say the balance is pretty balanced. The affordable bracket will undoubtedly pitch to those, as mentioned above, who may not necessarily have been on the S/A lists last year, but are now giving price rises. As I say, they are respectable income holders living in a market beyond their immediate means – their occupancy of such housing don’t, in my opinion, generally fall into the stereotypical representation of ‘ghetto’ inhabitants. If there are other concerns regarding such formations, consider the wider context of the setting which generally compensates for any fall off in private/middle-to-high income occupancies. As an integrated part of this broader environment, the balance is pretty in-line – and I don’t believe the development is subject to the imbalance associated with ‘ghetto-isation’. How the actual dispersion of uses across the development is arranged is a different matter – I don’t frankly know – but I would believe planners have assessed such elements.

That said – is there a problem? Yes. It needs to be addressed, and there’s no point in hiding behind ‘we’ve done this and thats’ to blanket the situation – it’s an interesting discussion and one I have a great penchant for.

---

As for the ‘height cap’ – its a complete kick in the nose for the average house buyer, not very thoughtfully considered. Should it be found legal and not in conflict with DoE guidelines on sustainable development, CCC, should an amendment be approved – CCC will be obliged to adhere to the policies of the City Development Plan. This means any proposal over 3 storeys will have to be refused on the basis of height and lead to an automatic deferral to ABP – this limits CCC say in its own jurisdication and does not guarantee developments over 3-storeys will be refused outright. So in a effect, its bad policy.

🙂

Thanks Lex-
Interesting what you say about it being CCC strategy to go above the 20% limit.
You make some good points too about affordability, list growth etc. I remember reading a while ago that social and lower cost housing in post-war Britain accommodated teachers, civil servants, other professionals etc, and that the current prejudice against it only dated from some years after that, on foot of social problems that were caused by socio-economic factors rather than by the buildings or by the inhabitants (but I’m getting out of my depth here- the 1950s was some years before my time 😉 ).
I’m not sure I’d agree that 32% is preferable to 20%. Certainly no more than 32% (a third of a development). (I have certain sympathy for developers, despite how I might come across!) I’d have no problem with living alongside or in social/affordable housing, but I know many people who think Part V = junkie reintegration, families with 10 kids under 4, ‘anti-social behaviour’ (if you’ll pardon the ridiculous euphemism) etc. I think we have a perception problem in Ireland with this that, were it to change, would help immeasurably the provision and integration nationwide. But this is getting off-topic…
It’ll be interesting to see where CCC goes from here with it, once they achieve what you call the ‘break’.

PS I think your city height cap is a joke. Presumably sense will prevail?

I’m a little stuck for time at the moment, so I’ll have to sit down and read through your last post in a bit more detail later on and will adjust my response accordingly, but just quickly…

The Cogan’s Field site sold for a figure between 7/8m euros – which was is by no means an undervaluation. I think you may be mixed-up with the Albert House leasehold sale to Howard Holdings which is now seeing near completion of the WebWorks facility. I believe the long-term lease value was questioned here by Councillors, it sold in the region of 2.25m to 2.5m euros.

Chapelfield and the Gurannabraher proposals have only recently been submitted for planning approval so obviously a decision is too early to comment and you can’t knock a proposal for not materialising when it hasn’t even been through approval. Local residents are opposing the project in this instance.

What provision? The one that takes time given that construction is not an overnight and its ready activity. Please read my posts regarding the provision being currently made but will take time to build i.e. Cogan’s Field, Chapelfield (give it a chance to get approval, its only recently lodged and the same team are behind it as Cogan’s Field – the Montgomery/Kenneally Partnership & John F. Supple Ltd) etc.

Re: Fingal – Cork has not been exposed to the same level of activity for the same period of time. Just because there’s a litter of tower cranes in the skyline over the past 2 years doesn’t mean they’ve been there all the time. People forget we are only entering the cusp.

Re: Horgan’s Quay – widely believed by the development community given that the planning application has not been lodged yet and a decision has not yet been made. It is prospective. It hasn’t been lodged yet because pre-planning discussions have first to be ironed out. You can’t just throw it up there – if you did, you’d have another faction complaining lack of consultation, poor build or whatever etc. You can’t please everyone 100% of the time.

Re: Shanakiel, the project is not off the shelves, complaints have been submitted – yes – a lot has to do with access points such as that near the Clogheen/Hollyhill junction and associated traffic volumes. These need to be ironed out.

Re: the Height Cap – this discussion has been outlined at length elsewhere in the thread. It may be worth reading through and it could help alleviate some of your confusion regarding the subject matter. 😮