CDP Review 3: Questions Relating to Population and Housing

3. Questions Relating to Population and Housing
3.1 The 2003 Plan did not have enough ‘conditional zoning’ to ensure that housing would only be allowed if specified recreational, amenity and infrastructure (e.g. schools) are put in place prior to or in tandem with new housing. For instance, the current crisis with the school in Ballygarvan could have been averted if the Local Area Plan had placed a condition on lands zoned for housing in the village. This condition would have stated that permission for new housing on these lands would not be granted until such time as planning permission had been obtained for a new primary school in the area. [Q2]
3.2 The Plan should encourage a greater mix of house sizes, types and styles. The focus should be on creating a quality, family-orientated, sustainable living environment. The current plan is structured too much around setting the housing density (which is only one planning parameter) of particular parcels of land. [Q1]
3.3 There is possibly scope to zone very little land for housing but to be open to developers to put forward proposals to develop unzoned land. The quid pro quo for the Council to change the zoning to housing would be that the developer would have to make a substantial, material investment in terms of infrastructure and amenity. At the moment, the developer/landowner reaps the complete benefit of new zoning without any commensurate requirement that amenities be provided. [Q2]
3.4 Imaginative approaches need to be implemented to encourage social integration, especially in new housing developments. For instance, the Council (or similar organizations such as Leader) might host and facilitate local community websites that would provide information on local services, amenities, clubs, societies, associations, etc. [Q3]
3.5 The Council should mix social and affordable housing with other housing to ensure that gettos don’t develop. [Q4]
3.6 Accommodation for travellers should seek to respect their traditions. [Q5]
3.7 It is difficult to comment on the housing needs of the elderly and disable and research is probably required in this area. Again, however, we believe that the question is not so much about housing as creating a living environment (of which housing is but one element). [Q6]
3.8 The Bacon report focused excessively on housing density rather than on how best to create sustainable, attractive, living communities. One could, for instance, envisage families living in apartment complexs if, and only if, the apartments are properly sized and designed, and if the complex provides appropriate social, play and recreational amenities to cater for the needs of all ages. Most importantly, high-density residential housing is only appropriate in those locations where there are high-density amenities. The developer, Mick Wallace, put it well in the Sunday Tribune of 4th February 2007: “Current regulations are not enough, most of the new apartments and housing developments aren’t suitable for families. We’re going to have to start building mch bigger apartments to accommodate for the fact that more people are going to be living in them long-term rather than as a temporary measure. And most of the new developments, whether they’re housing schemes or apartment schemes, don’t have adequate play areas or pitches for children”. [Q7]
3.9 The trend to smaller household size should not mean that we should build smaller houses. The ‘standard’ house size of c. 1300 sq. ft. dates from decades ago when houses didn’t have freezers, microwaves, computers, extra television sets, Playstations, young adults living at home, etc. The government grant for new housing has artificially skewed the housing stock towards a particular house size (and therefore style) and this is regrettable.