Dermot Carmody
DCC Proposes Limits On Build To Rent Developments In New City Development Plan
In January Dublin City Council (DCC) published its draft statement on the new Draft Dublin City Development Plan 2022-2028. In a chapter in the statement on Development Standards, DCC has proposed limits on the amount of Build-To-Rent (BTR) units that can be built in the city, claiming that such developments in large schemes are “to the detriment of the build to sell units” within such schemes.
To mitigate against this, DCC purposes only to accept BTR developments in specific areas:
Within the Inner City (i.e. within the canal ring).
Within 500m walking distance of a high employment area i.e. more than 500 employees per hectare.
Within 500m of major public transport interchanges (e.g. Connolly Station, Tara Street Station and Heuston Station), and within identified Strategic Development Regenerations Zones.
The first two of the above points particularly have clear implications for housing developments in the Dublin 4 area.
The plan proposes that there will be “a general presumption against” developments in excess of 100 units comprising 100% BTR. A minimum of the 40% of the units in such developments would have to be built to sell. In the case of smaller BTR developments under 100 units, these would only be considered where there is a “strong need” for such developments for which the applicant would have to provide a “detailed justification.”
The plan does concede that there is a part to play for BTR in achieving an appropriate mix of housing, but sets itself against over-proliferation of such developments in any one area. In view of this it would require developers wishing to build BTR developments to submit an assessment including other similar developments within 3km to demonstrate that any new development “would not result in the over-concentration of one housing tenure in a particular area.”
Additionally, in the chapter on Quality Housing & Sustainable Neighbourhoods that lays out the conditions under which BTR developments will be considered, the plan states that there will be a “general presumption against the granting of planning permission for shared accommodation/co-living in Dublin City.”
The full Draft Development Plan 2022-2028 is available on the DCC web site (https://www.dublincity.ie/residential/planning/strategic-planning/dublin-city-development-plan/development-plan-2022-2028), where you can make submissions until the end of the public consultation period for the plan on February 14th.
TAG Requests By Ministers Should Be Identified By Name
While discussing the Traffic Advisory Group (TAG) report at the meeting of the DCC Southeast Area Committee (SEAC) on January 10th, the SEAC chairperson, Cllr. Dermot Lacey (LAB) suggested that where requests were made by elected representatives rather than members of the public it should be practice to name the source of the request.
The Traffic Advisory group deals with requests on such issues as parking, road signs, access and road maintenance, and provides a report indicating the issue on which a request has been made and the recommended action to be taken, or the reason for action not being recommended.
The request which drew Cllr. Lacey’s attention in this instance was one that parking should be limited to one side of the road or should be “access for residents only” in Airfield Park, with the source of the request being identified solely by the word “Minister”. Cllr. Lacey made the point that “Dublin Bay South only has one minister, and that Minister is the Minister for Transport [Eamon Ryan].” Cllr. Lacey said it struck him as odd that the Minister for Transport, if it was he, was asking for something that is not possible under the rules of his own department.
Cllr. Claire Byrne (GREEN) pointed out that the Minister for Transport was not specifically indicated and therefore it should not be said that it was he who had made the request. She said that as the Minister for Transport’s PA she had no recollection of sending in any such request on his behalf, but said she has made repeated requests that it should be clarified on the TAG report which councillor, TD or Minister had submitted a request.
