Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
PLANNING PERMISSION HAS been granted for a 600-home development in Glanmire, Co Cork.
O’Flynn Construction was granted permission under the new Strategic Housing Development (SHD) process for the construction 608 residential units and neighbourhood centre at Ballinglanna. The neighbourhood centre includes a creche, retail services, a community building and a school site.
It is the largest approval under the SHD scheme to date and the first outside of Dublin. SHD planning allows developments of over 100 homes go straight to An Bord Pleanala, speeding up the application process.
Ballinglanna will see a mix of 496 terraced, semi-detached and detached houses ranging from two, three and four bedrooms in size, as well as 112 apartments in six separate blocks ranging from three to five storeys in height.
O’Flynn Construction expects to commence construction in Summer 2018, with the first units going on sale from around February next year.
Michael O’Flynn, Managing Director of O’Flynn Construction said the approval was welcome.
“It is particularly welcome that the Board has given an early grant of permission for Ballinglanna under the SHD process, and without any significant changes to the scheme, and we look forward to proceeding as quickly as possible with construction. I would like to acknowledge the speed with which An Bord Pleanala dealt with this application, and to pay tribute to Cork County Council for their input into this successful application.”
Ballinglanna has been zoned for residential development since 2005, but despite its zoning, previous proposals on the site had to go through the conventional planning process.
“Large residential schemes like Ballinglanna inevitably end up on appeal,” said O’Flynn, “So the new SHD process which allows applicants and third parties make their submissions directly to An Bord Pleanala is a welcome change and certainly can help address the housing crisis in a more appropriate and timely manner.”
The SHD application for the project was formally lodged on 20 December last year.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
I’m sorry but developments like this where working people will be stumping up sizeable amounts of money/mortgages should have 10/15% affordable housing . There is no equality in expecting one section of the occupants to pay; property tax, bin charges & maintain there property mortgages, while the other section gets there “council rent subsidised by taxs payed by the same people paying mortgages to live in the same development. The council should be building social housing not relying on developers and the rate of 15% of income for council rent needs to rise to reflect the realities of modern housing.
@Jonathan Whelan: must people who are eligible for social housing work as well. You don’t appear to have a problem with corporate welfare? Must of these developers cost the country billions. Now we are letting them do the same thing again.
@prop joe: Check your facts there bud the demographic of social tenants is not what it was 30/40 yr ago. Secondly stop whining about developers costing billions, with or without the bank bail out the expenditure to cover public sector wages and YES generous pensions coupled to the social welfare budget was UNSUSTAINABLE full stop. The banking bail out/meltdown would of been alot less severe if the planners & bank regulators did there jobs which they did not. The developers built, the bank lent money they did there job. The planners/regulators is where the poison started.
@prop joe: social housing was given away too easily in the past. It was used for its primary purpose – ie to house those who needed a leg up, when they got to the position that they could afford a home of their own, they were allowed buy out the social house which then wasn’t replaced – instead the obligation was framed out to the private sector who could opt out if they paid enough.
If you get a house from the state and are fortunate enough to be able to afford to buy later on, you should have to buy another house and let someone else who needs the help more take the social house. That way there’s always a supply.
But no, people will feel entitled ‘I’ve lived here for x years, I’m not moving, this is my home’
The problem is that everyone expects the other person to have to sacrifice for fairness
@Dara O’Brien:
Would agree with most of what you said with one change, if someone wants to gain ownership of their social housing, which isn’t an unreasonable aspiration especially if they have been there for decades but they should have to pay market price for it and only if the money is ring fenced to replace the housing stock.
@P.J. Nolan: very good point P.J.
@Jonathan Whelan: Are you seriously suggesting that developers were innocent bystanders in the devastating recession that crucified everyone in this country ? The economic collapse was caused by a toxic triangle of developers , bankers and politicians – all of whom walked away scot free with liitle or no effect on their lifestyle . Meanwhile Joe Public had to pay higher taxes USC , lost his job , saw his pension disappear , was tricked out of his tracker and struggled to keep the bills paid . While the likes of you excuse developers who ” just built ” -a pretty sickening post to pin the blame on the public who had to pick up the pieces while the developers had to endure the ” hardship ” of selling their helicopters and enduring six figure salaries from NAMA , pathetic
@col c: No not stating the developers/bankers are blameless but making the valid point that if planners had been responcible in the issuing of planning, i.e making sure there was a need and infrastructure in the area there would be substantially less ghost estates in “bally no where” . Secondly the bank regulator should of picked up on the reckless lending. did either do this?? no. prime example of game keeper & poacher….
Better sort out the bottleneck traffic problems quick so. Glanmire village right through to Sallybrook needs to have a new traffic plan
@@UK: Plans do account for only building 400 units of the 600 total until a improved local road layout / traffic plan is put into place so hopeful the bodies responsible for making that happen, do so in a reasonable time period.
Private developers should not be compelled to build social housing. Local authoritues should be building social housing
At long last!
Are these social housing ?
@Kevin Slater: 60 units (10% of the total) will be slated for social housing according to the plans.
@Kevin Slater: only a small percentage is social and affordable. Most are for private buyers.
There is a urgent and compelling need for massive social housing construction.
@Kevin Slater: 60 units / 10% of the total will be provided for social housing according to the plans.
@Kevin Slater: They are going on sale, but there is a 20% requirement in planning law for social/affordable housing.
@Michael Lang: sorry, but I think there is a more urgent need for private housing. If our workforce doesn’t have somewhere to start a family, they be leaving the country.
@neuromancer: so those on low wages can basically fu@k off …. you do realise that social housing is not free housing as some idiots proclaim.
@neuromancer: Dead right high time they started looking after the people who get up at 5,6 &7 am to drive trucks,buses ambulances, nurses, trademen and all other joe soaps who put in a weeks work! where is the mortgage interest relief that the gov took away?? Na no giving out about that just the hand out brigade wanting more VASTLY subsided housing for some while others have to pay there own way through life!
@Michael Lang: And who do you propose will pay for this social housing Michael? The already over burdened taxpayer? I don’t believe there should be any obligation to provide any social housing at all in developments where others have to work hard to afford a mortgage. It might encourage more people to get off their arse and get a job!
Is there anyway to ensure first time buyers and familys get first refusal on the private ones? It might stop wealthy middle aged f++krs buying them ad an investment and flaking up the rent?
@John O’Leary: *families
Glanmire is a car park at the best of times. This won’t help. 100s of houses, no traffic plans.
Will we see solar panels on every one oth them? Say that would be blocked by ESB.
@Paul A Whelan: seriously, do you really believe the ESB can block planning permission for houses with solar panels?
Have a think about what you’re saying there in your rush to be all eco-hippy and offended.
Jebus wept.
@Dara O’Brien: Dara I never mentioned planning permission, you made that imaginary leap. Not eco-hippy and offended, but I am an ecologist and understand the positive role solar panels can play in reducing carbon emissions.
@Paul A Whelan: “Say that would be blocked by the ESB”
Can you explain that part above so?
Thanks
@Paul A Whelan: “Say that would be blocked by the ESB”
Can you explain that part above so?
Thanks
@Paul A Whelan: why would the ESB block solar panels?
@Daniel Casey: Solar panels reduce the amount of electricity the esb could sell to the consumer.
Surely the benchmark fir house prices should be 3 time your salary. As a nurse, that means i should be able to buy a house for €120,000!
Looool!!!
@Kevin Slater: well, in the ideal world, you should be able to buy a house/apartment suited for 1 for €120,000
Or, you can pick up a garda in coppers and buy a house for €240,000 together
Of course, the ideal world doesn’t exist
Social housing must be prioritised,10,000 people homeless,not counting those that had to move back in with parents.
Should be able to pay NAMA back then
@Malcolm Smith: Yeah i wonder will his company pay back the 900 million euro that the taxpayer lost when his loans were sold by Nama . This doesn’t really fit with his ” good guy ” developer which he likes to portray on tv and radio as if the economic devastation of the recession had nothing to do with his company or his budd developers
have your say