Minister for Public Expenditure Jack Chambers has stood over his criticism of objections to housing developments on the basis of “character” – saying his views have evolved since his own objections on similar grounds in the past.
On Wednesday, Mr Chambers said the public good was being frustrated by objections that were nebulous.
“I’ve seen examples in recent months of housing getting stopped because it undermines the character of the area,” he said. “What does that mean? For me, it’s about housing. It’s about infrastructure and cutting through some of the nonsense which is just impeding the broader economic and social objective.”
In 2019, Mr Chambers objected to two large developments in his Dublin West constituency because one was “entirely out of kilter with the existing landscape” and the other was “out of context” with other housing developments in the area.
The first submission was to An Bord Pleanála objecting to a scheme for a 210-bed development of shared living units at the site of Brady’s Public House in the Navan Road in Dublin 15.
The second was an objection to a strategic housing development consisting of 192 apartments in five five-storey blocks at Balroy House in Carpenterstown, Dublin 15.
A spokesman for the Minister pointed out that the word “character” was not used in either of the objects, but also said Mr Chambers’ views had changed in the intervening six years.
“The observations were made many years ago, before him holding ministerial office. His views have evolved over the past number of years during his time in Government. In recent years, he has made a conscious decision not to make such observations. He believes all measures need to be examined to increase housing supply and infrastructure delivery across the country,” said the spokesman.
Concerning the co-living proposal on the Navan Road, a letter from Mr Chambers, then a backbench TD, and Cllr Freddie Cooper argued that the area around Brady’s pub was a “quiet, residential road with low rise and low density housing in a suburban neighbourhood.
“The proposed development is entirely out of kilter with the existing landscape and at 17.2m in height (five storeys) is visually obtrusive, overbearing and fails to integrate with existing two-storey dwellings.”
The objection to the development of 192 apartments in Carpenterstown was that it was targeted at renters rather than families. “The height of the apartment blocks is completely out of context with any other housing development in the area and is not appropriate for a suburb like Carpenterstown,” he wrote.
“There is a responsibility on planners to build homes that are sustainable going forward and not repeat the Ballymun experience of the 1960s,” he added.
It is understood that most TDs from the constituency, and many local councillors, made similar observations and objections to both developments.
[ Coalition planning changes to tackle 'regulatory barriers'Opens in new window ]
Mr Chambers’ constituency colleague, Roderic O’Gorman of the Green Party, also said his view towards planning observations and objections had changed.
“I have been involved with planning as a councillor since 2014 and long before,” he said.
“In the midst of a housing crisis, I reassessed my own approach to unpopular residential developments. I don’t think you can give them a blank slate. There are still proposals that come in that are just badly designed. Planners and politicians and residents are entitled to raise bad planning.
“As politicians, we can’t be complaining about the lack of housing in one press release and then slamming every piece of housing in our area in another. I have reassessed my approach ... Sometimes what I do is I might put in an observation, saying could it be phased or redesigned. I would only call for a flat-out rejection if I was convinced that it was really bad.”
