Sir, – I note with interest your editorial of August 22nd and the letter by Valerin O'Shea regarding Minister for Minister for Housing, Planning and Local Government Simon Coveney's solution to the housing crisis. We thought we had learned lessons from the developer-led construction era after the fiasco and subsequent crash of 2008.
In addition to the Minister’s demand for “low-rise” developments of 28 metres, the following may be of interest.
On July 12th, his office issued a document entitled Rebuilding Ireland. The first suggestion is a further extension of time for planning permissions already granted. But there's currently no shortage of zoned land with full planning permission and, according to his own document, permission is in place for 27,000 residential units in Dublin alone.
Second, the Minister proposes to circumnavigate the planning process and make direct application to An Bord Pleanála for developments with 100-plus units while demanding that the body determine these new applications within 18 weeks. There’s no evidence An Bord Pleanála is holding up development. It already has a procedure to expedite housing applications.
Furthermore, a large proportion of appeals to An Bord Pleanála are from developers pleading against local authority financial contributions. Demanding that it determine new applications within 18 weeks does not address the high level of requests for further information that arise.
It would seem we’re looking at yet another Government bent on gratifying the demands of developers and using a crisis to do so. – Yours, etc,
PAULINE CADELL,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Regarding the maximum building height and low-rise restrictions in Dublin city, I suggest that there is great merit in planning for a modern high-density city but with quality housing suitable for families.
For the last several decades, new housing has sprawled out in all directions from the city, covering greenbelt farmland, floodplains or dwarfing small local towns and villages. The Irish love affair with the semi-detached house with front and back gardens seems to have come about because of some disastrous examples of high-density housing such as the Ballymun towers. However, in other modern cities, apartment living is the norm.
Consider two family situations. The Jones family opts to live in Dublin city in a three-bed apartment close to bus routes, schools, shops and parks. This family may well be able to operate without a car, with reduced commuting, travel expenses, increased time with children, closeness to parks, etc. Meanwhile, the Smith family has opted to live in Navan in a semi-detached house. This choice is likely to necessitate at least one car, long commute times, an earlier start in the morning for parents and children, less time spent with children in the evening due to commuting, and extensive use of car for daily life.
I suggest that the family living in the three-bedroomed apartment in the city has a much higher quality of life in comparison to the family living in Navan. Equally important, there would be a marked difference between each family’s greenhouse gas contribution.
Strategic city planning when it comes to housing, transport, shopping, schools, parks, etc, can do a lot to reduce our carbon footprint.
High-density housing can be serviced much more efficiently in terms of water, gas sewerage, refuse, electricity, telecoms, postal service, emergency services, road network, cycle paths, and so on. – Yours, etc,
EUGENE CALLAN,
Churchtown, Dublin 14.