Board rules in favour of Nenagh homes

Residents fear ‘excessive’ proportion of social housing

An Bord Pleanála has given the green light for a controversial plan to add 18 new houses to an estate in Nenagh.

Local residents objected to the plan by Singland Homes Ltd to build the houses on a green area in Springfort Meadows. Tipperary Co Council last year granted conditional planning permission for the construction of 10 three-bedroom, seven two-bedroom and one four-bedroom dwelling on a 0.38ha site in the estate. Four of the dwellings were to be transferred to the council in accordance with Part V of the Housing & Development Act.

The council received 17 submissions from Springfort Meadows residents objecting to the plan on wide-ranging concerns, from traffic congestion to housing density to loss of green space.

They also raised concern over the concentration of social housing in their estate, where the council had acquired 19 turnkey - now almost complete - units from the developer.

Residents believed that the developer would also seek to sell all 18 of the newly-planned houses to the council as well, leaving more than a third of the homes in Springfort Meadows dedicated to social housing.

TENURE-BLINDNESS

An appeal to An Bord Pleanála was made in the name of local resident Patrick Patrick Devenney. Among the points raised was that the contention that Springfort Meadows would have an “excessive” proportion of 33.6% of social housing.

This housing would not be “pepper-potted throughout the estate” in line with the social integration practice of tenure-blindness, but rather concentrated together in one area.

“It is not possible to achieve tenure-blindness as the whole development will be bought by Tipperary County Council,” the submission in Mr Devenney’s name pointed. Among other issues, this would lead to “negative equity due to disproportionate levels of social housing”.

The board also received a submission from Jackie Cahill, TD. While “not opposed to the development of badly-needed housing”, Deputy Cahill also raised concern over tenure-blindness and negative equity for existing owners. He wanted to see houses used for affordable housing, and also raised concern in relation to loss of open space in Springfort Meadows.

NO ‘UPPER LIMIT’

MKO Ireland Planning & Environmental Consultancy, agent for Singland Homes, responded by making the point that Part V seeks to achieve “minimum” levels of social housing. “Nenagh Town & Environs Plan and Tipperary County Development Plan do not specify an upper limit in social housing provision.”

Given the number of dwellings surrounding the site, the applicant’s agent considered that tenure-blindness would be achievable.

It dismissed the point on negative equity, stating “there is no evidence that social housing in a residential estate negatively impacts house prices”.

Among the other concerns addressed, MKO argued that provision of open space could be adjusted on a site-specific basis. It stated that Singland Homes’ plan was in keeping with local and national planning policy with regard to meeting housing demand.

Following a lengthy assessment of the case last year, the Bord Pleanála inspector recommended granting permission subject to several conditions, including a requirement for one of the houses to be omitted from the development and for the plot to be landscaped as open space.

The inspector also considered that a part of the site marked on the plan as a former crèche site should be provided for open space.

Neither of these conditions were included in board’s order, which was made last month. The order did however include a condition that an 800-square-metre site in the applicant’s ownership to the northwest of the subject site be provided as public open space in conjunction with the development.

The board also imposed a condition restricting all dwellings in the development “to first occupation by individual purchasers, ie, those not being a corporate entity, and/or by those eligible for the occupation of social and/or affordable housing, including cost-rental housing”.

The reason for this was “to restrict new housing development to use by persons of a particular class or description in order to ensure an adequate choice and supply of housing, including affordable housing, in the common good”.