We have concerns about the following social issues: -

‘Build to Rent’ developments are large-scale developments that have the potential to deliver residential accommodation at a pace and scale significantly greater than that of the more traditional developers.

‘Shared accommodation or ‘Co-Living’ consists of professionally managed rental accommodation where individual rooms are rented within an overall development that includes access to shared or communal facilities and amenities.

A number of references have been made to social housing in the actual policies. This is to be welcomed. BUT, we are most concerned that aspects of the above referenced statements in the text that preceded the actual policies.

Vulture Funds: While rental property is essential, we are aware that ‘Build to Rent developments’ have been promoted by so called vulture funds / hedge funds. This is frankly unacceptable. This type of landlord is not much different to what Ireland prayed off vulnerable tenants in the 1800’s.

BUILD TO RENT SCHEMES

On the Tuesday, 18th February 2020, RTE’s John Kilraine reported that a new build-to-rent development at Clongriffin in north Dublin comprising 376 rental units had been completed and that ‘The first 117 tenants did not physically see their new homes before moving in as the rental agreement had already been completed’. RTE further reported that the development was ‘managed by Vesta and was built by its sister company Twinlite with funding from British investors’…’The monthly rent is €1,550 for a one-bed, €1,990 for a two-bed and €2,499 for a three-bed.’

Reference: https://www.rte.ie/news/2020/0218/1116105-vesta-apartments-twinlite/

1. Most of the accommodation is for single people.
2. Meanwhile, what about Irish families growing up in hotel rooms?
3. These developments are not family friendly!
4. Moreover the rental income is flowing out of the country.
5. This is frankly ludicrous and a mirror of what Ireland fought so hard to rid itself of in the 1800’s.
6. The new Development plan should proscribe such developments.
7. Irish people should be afforded the dignity of owning their own home.

We submit that a policy specifically proscribing this form of ‘investor’ / ‘landlord’ from building anywhere in the County of Kildare. It might read like: To support the common good, it shall be the policy of the County Council to promote the private buy to rent sector in preference to investments funds.

Shared accommodation or ‘Co-Living’: This is an unacceptable form of accommodation and should not be permitted under ay circumstances in the county. There are all sorts of social issues with this type of accommodation, which offers little more than shelter. It is another form of profiteering on the backs of vulnerable individuals and deprives them of a basic level of dignity. We are aware of one development in Dublin where a site was previously permitted for 40 apartments. In December 2019 the applicants applied for a 121-unit co-living development in the north inner city. It would see communal kitchens shared by up to 17 people. This scheme for 121 co-living units at a derelict site on Mountjoy Street would see between 14 and 17 people sharing a kitchen and paying €1,300 a month. This is unacceptable in any County.

It is submitted that a specific policy be inserted into the County Development Plan proscribing this type of development in the county by reason of social issues and also incompatibility with the counties heritage status. It might read like: To ensure that living standards are upheld in the county it shall be the policy of the County Council to prohibit the development of co-living accommodation.

Densities: While Building at higher densities makes more efficient use of land and allows for a more compact form of development that supports and maximises investment in critical infrastructure such as public transport. Sound insulation continues to be problematic in that neighbours can still hear noise from each other through the inadequate walls. We also witnessed a modern estate house burned over the Christmas of 2019. Of note was the fact that the houses on either side were also badly damaged. This all points to improper and insufficient insulation and division between the properties. Its all very well for policy to encourage better use of land space; but it is imperative that corresponding policies mandate that additional insulation and sound proofing be included in the build (irrespective of what building regulations state as these are currently wholly inadequate in this respect).

Therefore it is submitted that a policy be inserted along the lines of: - It shall be the policy of the County Council that all buildings are adequately insulated to prevent sound from travelling beyond their living area so that others can peacefully enjoy their living space in comfort.

We further recommend that a policy be added to the effect that new build be insulated to a standard such that they require minimal artificial heat. A policy that all new builds be fitted with heat recovery air conditioning systems to improve the health of those living in them. This might read like: - It shall be the policy of the County Council that all buildings are adequately insulated and fitted with heat recover systems so that heat loss is minimal and the need for artificial heat is minimised.

Industrial development should not have a detrimental impact on the lives of people living in the county. The quality of people’s lives should therefore be prioritised.

New housing developments should be built to foster community feeling and be arranged so that children have a place to play outside where they can be supervised by their parents glancing out the window. Appropriate housing mixes can improve neighbourly behaviour and reduce feelings of isolation, especially if houses can accommodate people at different stages of life e.g. bungalows for older people who can’t manage stairs.

ONE OFF HOUSES in RURAL AREAS

While we support the County Council in its endeavors to restrict housing in rural areas, there are occasions where it will be appropriate to grand such permissions. There has been much discussion in the public sphere of a minimum land holding size before an occupant would be permitted to construct a home. The figure of 25 acres has been mentioned as a minimum acreage before the council would consider a grant of planning. This would appear to be very arbitrary and fails to take account of horticultural industry norms, which typically require far less land. For example; 5 acres of ground can accommodate quiet a sizable nursery supporting the employment of many people. Likewise there will be other intensive rural enterprises, which will not require anything like 25 acres of ground. It is therefore recommended that this arbitrary restriction by reviewed with a view to accommodating the type of industry alluded to above.