Those on social housing waiting lists hoping to take up residence on Dublin's Shrewsbury Road should perhaps hold off checking out the neighbours. Edel Morgan reports
An Bord Pleanála recently granted O'Malley Construction planning permission to build a block of about seven luxury apartments on the former Chester Beatty Library site in Shrewsbury Road on condition it comply with the housing strategy.
Under the Planning and Development Act, 2000, up to 20 per cent of a development must be given over to social and affordable housing. But it appears Shrewsbury Road may not be getting its first local authority tenants or low- to middle-income buyers just yet.
Dublin City Council says it is in negotiation with O'Malley Construction about how its Part V obligations will be fulfilled. But, according to Mr John O'Connor, executive manager of Dublin City Council's housing department, "no decision has been made, but we may consider the issue of compensation or some other provision off site. The land costs in that area may not be affordable for us."
Under Section 96 of the Planning and Development Act, local authorities are allowed to require payment "of an amount equivalent in value to a transfer of land to the authority. . ." if "for reasons of the size, shape or other attribute of the site, the planning authority or the Board on appeal considers that an agreement under subsection (3) is not practical".
Allowing a developer to meet its Part V obligations by handing over housing units in another less-desirable location or by compensating the local authority in lieu of units is normally a concession made only to developers who bought land before August 1999, said Mr O'Connor. O'Malley Construction bought the one-acre site at 20 Shrewsbury Road in November 1999 for €9 million.
"If a developer is buying a site in an expensive area, they now know that 10 per cent will be given over to social and 10 per cent to affordable, so they will know they should be paying less for the land," Mr O'Connor says.
"We have a situation in Donnybrook where a developer is saying it's not viable to put in social and affordable units given the small size of the development and the cost of the land. He bought land knowing that was the case so he shouldn't have paid too high a price."
The President, Mrs McAleese, referred Part V of the Act to the Supreme Court, pursuant to Article 26 of the Constitution, which upheld the constitutionality of its provisions. As a result, they are effectively immune from any form of constitutional challenge in the future.
The local authorities are not always averse to doing deals with developers, however. Dublin City Council agreed with Heritage Properties that only "empty nesters" be given the 21 social and affordable units in their 101-apartment development Shelbourne Park in Dublin 4. It is believed Dublin City Council paid around €215,000 per unit.
According to Mr O'Connor, a number of these apartments went to senior citizens who had been living in larger local authority accommodation and were scaling down. Some were given to over-60s who had sold their home and given Dublin City Council a contribution of between one-third and one-fifth of its price under the Financial Contribution Scheme to stay in the apartment for the rest of their lives.
"We are not buying many three-bed apartments because they are expensive, so for families we are more likely to provide housing, either new builds or second-hand."
The concept of social integration does not always take the scattered "pepper pot" approach. Sometimes the social units in a scheme will be together in one block or area.
"We wouldn't necessarily object to that. We wouldn't like the social element to be far removed from the private. But having them all together makes sense for us in terms of ease of management," Mr O'Connor said.
"The experience in the UK, in terms of social integration, is that whether the local authority units are dispersed or all together makes no difference. Social integration happens when the children go to school and mixing tends to happen socially."
While social housing is occupied by local authority tenants who pay a rent, the affordable housing scheme provides housing in areas where property prices have created an affordability gap for lower-income house purchasers.
Those deemed eligible can buy at a substantial discount from the market price.
Dublin City Council gives local authority tenants "significant priority" over people in private accommodation on the affordable housing list. Most of the 10 affordable apartments in a scheme in Thorncastle Street, Ringsend, Dublin 4, were purchased by former local authority tenants.
Both affordable and social housing list candidates can choose three areas of preference, but while the social housing people can turn down an unlimited number of offers, affordable candidates are off the list after three refusals.
According to Ms Bridget Fogarty of South Dublin County Council, the affordable and social housing element of the scheme must be within 400 metres of the private element "to avoid developers trying to fulfil their obligations in upmarket areas by handing over land in less desirable areas".
In a proposed 343-unit development by Ritz Consortium in Portmarnock, Co Dublin, which is currently in the planning process, it appears the 15 per cent Part V element of the scheme will be in a standalone block at the back of the main site.
According to Mr Dick Brady of Fingal County Council, which is considered the most pro-active of the councils in terms of providing housing, "we have no major difficulty in relation to that. If there was a wall between the private and the Part V or separate entrances that would be different."
Mr Kieran Murphy of Threshold, a charitable organisation working in the area of housing and homelessness, says that, while he generally supports the objectives of Part V, it is not providing an additional source of social housing to the National Development Plan as originally envisaged, but an alternative source, which is "hugely disappointing".
"The affordable units available seem to be hugely oversubscribed. They are termed affordable but are still beyond many households," he said.
While he accepted that keeping social housing together in one area of a development facilitated management, "I wouldn't want to see separate entrances or a clear barrier between the rented part and the owned part.
"I heard a worrying report of a development where the rented element is physically removed from the private. It wouldn't at all surprise me if developers wanted to separate the social component of an estate."