madisona

Minister Noel Ahern in the Dail. nov 2nd

“Part V ……..is fully operational and all relevant residential planning applications are now subject to a Part V agreement….. my Department’s stated preference, which has been communicated to local authorities, is for the provision of housing units.

I am satisfied that Part V is contributing significantly to the provision of social and affordable housing…..
The final say …….is for the individual local authority manager. Housing is a very important part of the local authorities’ function and we have to give them some power……I accept that different managers might see the issue slightly differently and one hears of cases of varied interpretations……… Developers who fought against it very strongly now accept that it is the law of the land ….. we are not considering any overall change to the system at this stage.”

Thanks Lex
Firstly the land at Boreenamanna Road. I think that this is land that was given free to CCC by the government several years ago for the purpose of building social and affordable housing. Instead of so doing they gave in to pressure from Councillers and residents associations and instead sold the land to a private developer.
I seem to recall at the time that there was criticism of the low price that they received. The fact that this development will include some social and affordable housing is probably more related to govt pressure that this be be made a condition of sale rather than CCC. It is indeed very promising that a crane has now been erected. However it appears that this is the only development in the city that will provide any social and affordable housing in the short term.

From what I can gather from what you say the total number of houses and flats for which have been acquired since 2000 and for which agreement has been reached under Part V stands at six and there has been no agreement to acquire any more.

So Gurranabraher and ChapelField are “proposals” that are “awaiting Council approval” I won’t hold my breath.

I thought that the Shanakiel proposal has been shelved indefinitely following objections from residents and Councillers?

In relation to Horgans Quay you say that “It is widely believed ……..Part V actions will be implemented” widely believed by who ? I look at the actions of the Housing Department and the dozens of instances where Part V has not being implemened. There has also been nothing from the Council indicating a change of heart regarding the granting of exemptions using the opt out clause.

“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 ….. As I said earlier, S/A provisions are substantially higher than what could be achieved through Part V”
😮 HUH!!! What provision ? Could you please tell me where these houses are. As I said the houses in Blackrock were built under the governments Sustaining Progress iniative. What other houses or flats have CCC provided over the last few years for affordable housing? If they had implemented Part V several hundred high quality units a year would have been provided. Where exacly are these greater numbers located ? Or are you again referring to proposed future devopments that will be provided following discussions with the co operative and magnaminious developers .

you say that the reason that Fingal has implemented Part V and Cork hasn’t is because it has been “exposed to development progressions” and “development opportunities” . And Cork hasn’t?

You seem to justify CCC’s policy of not implementing Part V by saying that “a degree of leeway has to be afforded for the ‘break’ point to be achieved”and that once it is they will be “in a more comfortable position to enact Part V” and “it has to be applied on the right terms” What break point ? This is the first time I have heard this justification. When do you think this break point might be achieved ? in 5 years? in 10?
I agree with you that rising prices are one of the reasons that the lists are growing. but is this not even more of a reason to implement Part V now , rather than putting it off to some mythical break point in the future?

With regard to the height cap you say that “CCC will be obliged to adhere to the policies of the City Development Plan” Well, not really. After all the development plan also says that they should acquire 20% of housing in new developments as allowed for under Part V and they haven’t exactly adhered to that now, have they?

yes I am making inferences and assumptions but I think that they are reasonable given the current situation in Cork. An important line from the document you sent is
“The Planning and Development Act 2000 came into operation on the 1st of November 2000”
It is now 2005. Where are the Houses?
I do not have access to the inside information you have regarding upcoming developments but I have been hearing similar promises for years and very little has been delivered.
You mention Fingal County council. That council in contrast to Cork has been acquiring and distributing large amounts of affordable housing under Part V. Cork has not.
You have also not addressed the issue of why the payments that the Housing Office has been accepting in lieu of housing have been so low and as far as I can see are in contravention of the 2002 amendment which states that contributions should be “equivalent to the monetary value of the land that the planning authority would receive if the agreement solely provided for a transfer of land.” you say that CCC actively pursues the acquisation of land. yet they have acquired no land to date under Part V. ( once again I do not have access to applications in progress)

Ctesiphons last post is also pertinent. Part V was designed to lead to integrated housing. The proposed developments you mention (if they ever happen which I doubt) seem to indicate a return to the old model of segregated estates for the poor.

I have no evidence of wrongdoing. The Housing office might be blocking the provision of affordable housing for other reasons e.g pressure from residents Associations and councillers. I would agree however that the opt out clause introduced by Martin Cullen in 2002 clearly has the potential to facilitate corruption. Housing officials in waterford for example were recently suspended after an internal audit uncovered “serious errors in the calculation of contributions”