Irish Political News

Heartening to hear the staunch protestations in favour of social housing from Lucinda Creighton. As reported in the Irish Times:

Two of the four TDs for Dublin South East have denied they object to social and affordable housing in Sandymount after they opposed plans by developer Sean Dunne for the provision of 15 apartments in the area.

Fianna Fáil’s Chris Andrews and Fine Gael’s Lucinda Creighton both said they had no objection in principle to having more social and affordable homes in Sandymount, but were concerned about the height of a proposed four-storey development

I have always felt that ‘no objection in principle’ is as clear and transparent a way of indicating support for an issue as can be found. Other, that is, than actually saying ‘no objection at all’.

Asked whether she was opposed to the plan to develop social and affordable housing in Sandymount, Ms Creighton said “absolutely not” . Families in Sandymount would prefer to see their children getting a home locally rather than having to move out to places such as Clondalkin.

Clondalkin is a long way away. But needless to say, there are undeniable concerns.

She said some families living beside the Sandymount site were concerned about their homes being overlooked and wanted the proposed development reduced in height.

And that too is understandable. I too live in a nice part of the city, albeit one that has a rather more varied social mix than Sandymount. One might even describe it as inner city working class with a leavening of incomers. Very close to where I live there is a fire station. It is being transferred to another location. Planning permission was put in for high level residential accommodation. It failed but one presumes (given experience of such matters) that it will be eventually passed with a height restriction. One way or another I am steeling myself for the lovable prospect of upper middle class apartments overlooking my yard. It’s going to be great.

And I know that for a fact because early last Summer out and about on political errands, I could see a similar now-extant development with precisely that sort of height where as I traipsed from door to door my every move was followed by - no doubt - latte sipping latte sippers…. (actually now, that’s just plain gratuitous on my part… it could have been hot chocolate and marshmallow… or absinthe - although those I could see were drinking from cups or mugs).

And therefore I am of one mind with the doughty Ms. Creighton when it is reported that her:

…written objection claimed that the apartment block would “overlook and overshadow” the houses and gardens of neighbouring properties “and will have a visual impact on the residents”. The extra traffic would put further pressure on the already overloaded network.

The residents’ association said the development was out of character with the surroundings in terms of height, density, scale, design and materials used. It would also exacerbate traffic problems. In other areas of Dublin the surrounding properties in Church Avenue and Tritonville Road would be considered worthy of preservation by reason of their architectural surroundings.

And yet curiously, I am one hundred per cent certain that the development close to the house I live in will go ahead. Despite having precisely the same characteristics as are described above. I can’t quite work out though what’s the difference. Perhaps someone could enlighten me…

A superb riposte to The Dubliner magazine by Donagh at Dublin Opinion on the issue of class, power and societal structures…