developments in cork

@Radioactiveman wrote:

Regarding the “High-rise” ban- no good can come of it! This is a badly thought out motion and really was appealling to the lowest common denominator (NIMBY) residents groups.

A few questions which people may be able to answer:

1. Who owns the houses immediatly before the traffic lights outside UCC main gaites- on the left as you head out of town, one of them is called “Finbarr House”. They are beautiful structures but are in a woeful state of repair. The gardens of at least two have been used for years by Main-drainage workers i believe. Anybody know who is responsible for these?
2. When can we now expect a submission for the Academy St. development? Will it be delayed to consult with Dunnes re the neighbouring development?
3. Since CCC have saved themselves the trouble of putting up Christmas Lights on Patrick Street this year (they’re still up from last year) will there be a move to improve on last year’s pretty underwhelming display?

The implications of the ban are far more extensive than people realise. First, off, the City Council will have to draw up and assess where suburbs logically begin and end – this in itself automatically creates a clear divide among regions and residents of the city at large. Second, it creates exclusionary isolationalism which is not sustainable and in direct conflict with the certain sections of the Planning & Development Act 2000. Third, it is a rich-man’s motion – for so-called champions of the ‘working class’, their representatives have really let them down, that includes Sinn Fein, the Labour Party, the Socialist Party and the likes of Dave McCarthy et al. The preception that investment will continue as is, unaffected by the ban, is naive. As house prices increase, those on the lower end of the wage bracket will be forced to seek home elsewhere, even if they have lived in areas like Bishopstown all their lives. Consequently, the demand will force the accelerated consumption of green areas in and around the city as development is shifted to cater for new homes and more sustainable prices. Fourth, what happens as the city develops and suburban boundaries are reassessed? Will the entire city by subject to sprawling blcoks of monotonous 2 and 3 storey homes and apartment blocks? Such a ban cannot last in the interests of sustainability. The policy is the most ill conceived, self centred policy considered at the hands of CCC in many years and shows complete disregard for the broader public. And that’s not scare-mongering, I can do that too, but this is fact. Councillor McCarthy’s argument that the new residential developments equate to those being demolished in the likes of Togher and Blackpool is fecious – the standard and quality of those flats don’t even compare to the issue proposals. And even the social/affordable housing redeveloped at the former Blackpool flats extends to 6-storeys, commonly regarded as a superb example of s/a development.

– As for Academy Street, OCP have already held discussions with Dunnes Stores, a planning application is expected for November as scheduled.

@altuistic wrote:

Maybe i’m missing something here, but just a few points…and first let me say that i neither condone nor agree with the motion but…

a. arent housing prices growing as it is anyway? Why is such a ban a neccessary catalyst for increasing house prices?

b. some of the prices on these apartments as it is are outrageous – 325000 for a 2 bedroom apartment? Thats almost as much as a house in some places.

c. if a development is in breach of a development plan, don’t the appeals board usual refer to a local authority’s development plan concerning patterns of development in its deliberation?

But that said I agree that it is a stupid motion.

There are a couple of scenarios to assess – the 1st, development land values remain in line, but consequently, given the cap – are restricted in the number of units the site could otherwise accommodate. If granted, to cover costs sufficiently and still profit, a developer will have to increase unit prices – that’s assuming demand for such land remains the same.

Indeed some apartment prices are very steep – however compare this to the average cost of housing units on, for example, the Model Farm Road – average house prices here work out at about €425,000. From a buyers perspective, that’s €700 to €800 more per month on a variable 20-year mortgage versus repayment on a €325,000 mortgage of the same nature (indeed it is a hefty price for 800sq ft, but it can make all the difference for some individuals). The option of an apartment in the same area can provide a much more attractive alternative. However, where site size and assoicated costs do not justify the development of housing, and requires high density style development to justify these such costs, you’ll find that a density/height cap restricts the number of units provided – either way, pushing unit costs up. This will displace certain region of a prospectively larger market catchment. Clearly an uncatered for section of the market will exist, and developers will take advantage of the opportunity, but will be forced to located development elsewhere in locations were site size vs land value allow for the sustainable construction of large developments within the cap. Obviously, given a constrained site size, with a required number of units will mean the displaced of the proposal over a larger area. Even if a planning authority restricts site capacity, the residual demand will be satisfied elsewhere and this will still encompass the consumption of another site. Market ‘law’ suggests that these such sites are generally found in peripheral, ‘green’ locations. From the CCC’s perspective, the height cap stands to see them lose out on development contribution fees as projects are relocated elsewhere – i.e. CorkCoCo jurisdiction. Indeed, a certain level of the market will always seek that apartment along the Victoria Cross Road – but the market catchment is substantially reduced.

Indeed, some developers may still apply for a 5 or 6-storey block – but under the new cap, CCC will be obliged to either refuse, or reduce the project to within policy permittant lines, possibly rendering the development unviable. An appeal to ABP, will ultimately allow ABP a greater say in the end result – and empirically, a greater say in Cork development full-stop should more and more developments be required for referral to the Bord (that’s assuming development supply remains the same). Generally ABP consider Development Plan policy, but they also assess a project within the context of its environment, and the overall suitability of that project within this context. This can over-ride policy in some cases, should the environment exist in contravention of a Development Plan amendment. i.e. If every other building is 5 to 6-storeys and CCC refusal is based on a later applied amendment stating a cap of 3-storeys, the context of the proposal would suggest its planned 6-storeys is more suited to the overall pattern of development in the area. That is one potential outcome.

let them have their 3 storey ceiling. It would take alot more to improve the area anyway. Let developers spend their money in other parts of metro-Cork and then we’ll see how attitudes change.

The problem is that the motion stated ‘suburbs’ – inclusive of broader suburban areas other that Bishopstown. The predominant pattern of development has been associated with the Victoria Cross corridor which is more than suitable for such development. Other isolated developments have included Westend and the Rossbrook area. The problem with the cap is that it will also limit the capacity to improve the area and the elements which you state as being in the ‘found wanting’ basket.

@bunch wrote:

re: the “last nights note by the councillors of gloom”

just to clarify things in my mind here- is it not true that the current city development plan is still the statutory plan for cork city and suburbs?

last nights vote was a motion and not a vote on an actual amendment to the plan? surely 15 councillors cannot alter a development plan over the course of a monday nights rambling…what’s the situation?

btw – an bord pleanala can overrule a development plan

the three storey ban would potentially conflict with government guidelines on residential density 1999 and government policy precedes local authority statutory plans. it would also conflict with government policy on sustainability.

Indeed the motion last night leads the way for an amendment to be made to the Cork City Development Plan – making it statutory policy…however…

…the wording of the amendment is not as easy as some councillors may think, and it will, as Joe Gavin noted – take some time.

Furthermore, there are complications as bunch quite rightly noted regarding this policy and guidelines set out by the DoE. This may yet constitute a legal issue.

The amendment will have to go through Council again before it is passed. Such amendments will be subject to submissions and these must be noted by Council. Feel free to make well argued submissions – I’ll notify you when the CCC make notification. In the meantime, prospective development for the area can proceed in line with existing policies until such a time that this is written into the Development Plan or a challenge is settled.

The vital flaw with the proposal is that it doesn’t make any sense – neither economic, social and planning sense. CCC stands to lose out more on this proposal more than anyone else – however it can side-step around it as well. In its division of suburbia, appropriate designations can maintain areas suitable for development. It will be the jobs of the planners and management to identify these designations.