We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
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.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
IT LOOKED SEWN up earlier this month when Dublin City councillors approved the redevelopment of O’Devaney Gardens on Dublin’s northside.
Following an 11th hour “agreement” struck between councillors and developer Bartra, it seemed that three years of discussions at Dublin City Council had finally concluded.
Built in 1954, O’Devaney Gardens – once home to 272 social houses – was originally set to be redeveloped in 2008 through a public-private partnership between developer Bernard McNamara and Dublin City Council.
Cue years of inertia until September 2016 when councillors voted to push ahead with its redevelopment through its Housing Lands Initiative, which aims to work alongside developers to build a mix of social, affordable and private housing on large council-owned sites.
On Monday 4 November, members of the Dublin Agreement group – made up of Fianna Fáil, Labour, Social Democrats and Green Party councillors – announced that they had “secured a commitment” from developer Bartra that 30% of the total units will be purchased from the developer at market price and offered as “affordable-rental” in an attempt the end the deadlock.
The deal foresees the site being divided between 30% social housing, 30% affordable-rental, 20% affordable-purchase and 20% private dwellings.
The “commitment” from Bartra CEO Michael Flannery is to sell 247 of the 411 private dwellings at O’Devaney to an Approved Housing Body (AHB), which in turn will offer these units as “affordable-rental”.
However, representatives are now questioning how workable that scenario is in reality and whether the “agreement” or “deal” struck with Bartra was above-board.
‘Incompetent Or Deliberately Misleading?’
Two days after the vote, Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy wrote to Lord Mayor Paul McAuliffe.
Claims of “a deal”, Murphy said, were made without any consultation with his department and that buying the units earmarked for “affordable-rental” will require significant capital and in order to repay the finance, he said.
That means rents would have to be set at current market rates, which would not be “affordable-rental”.
Murphy said funding was available for the deal that the city council brought to government but that no Affordable Housing Body had yet come on board.
Murphy added that the government believes in mixed-tenure when it comes to housing and said it wanted to build sites for all members of the public, including a mix of private, social and affordable homes.
Questions were also asked regarding whether or not the “agreement” with Bartra raised legal issues relating to the procurement process – a claim quickly dismissed by Lord Mayor McAuliffe.
Sinn Féin’s Housing spokesperson, Eoin Ó Broin TD – who obtained the letter from the Housing Department – said Murphy’s letter confirmed that “no such deal had been secured”.
Speaking on RTÉ’s Today with Sean O’Rourke on Monday, Ó’Broin said there was no funding for affordable rental accommodation to be provided by the Department of Housing and that there was no request for such funding.
“Even if Dublin City Council was to buy 30% of the units from Bartra, because the price they would be buying them at is so high they wouldn’t be affordable to rent.
“In fact, the rent would be close to market rent. So either the Dublin agreement group are incompetent and didn’t know what they signed up to, or they deliberately misled other councillors.”
‘Only solution’
It’s important to note that the new “deal” or “agreement” struck between Dublin Agreement councillors and developer Bartra remains purely aspirational.
There is only a “commitment” from developer Bartra to selling 30% of private units at O’Devaney to an AHB.
Despite postponing a decision on O’Devaney in late October, councillors who finally approved a deal on 4 November voted for what was essentially the original Sinn Féin deal struck in September 2017. In other words, 30% social housing, 20% affordable-to-buy and 50% private residential.
Sinn Féin councillors, however, still disagree with the cost of the “affordable” units, figures drawn up by council management in negotiations with Bartra and not councillors. That is why a vote on O’Devaney was postponed in early October, Sinn Féin councillor Daithí Doolan said.
Secondly, Doolan said, there is not enough gain for the local community. “The developer is basing the sale of the private units on a belief that he bought that land on the private market and he didn’t. He got the land from the city council for nothing.”
The question is did councillors feel they were misinformed or vote through a deal under false pretenses?
Labour councillor Alison Gilliland told TheJournal.ie. “No.”
“We were very clear on what we were doing … we were determined to find a way of getting affordable rental on that site while respecting the tender agreement [with Bartra].
“Purchasing privately from Bartra was the only solution,” said Gilliland.
Gilliland said that Dublin Agreement councillors aim to put in place a form of affordable rental scheme at O’Devaney to avoid rents being set at market prices and that informal discussions have already taken place with a number of Approved Housing Bodies.
“I’m absolutely disgusted at Sinn Féin,” said Gilliland. “They are making a political football out of O’Devaney and they’re trying to undermine it even though I count nine times that they’ve supported it.”
Councillors, meanwhile, could potentially still move to rescind the deal which transferred the O’Devaney lands from Dublin City Council to Bartra.
On Monday evening at City Hall, Sinn Féin will table a motion calling for the arrangement to be rescinded.
Said Doolan: “[Dublin Agreement councillors] are failing to see that O’Devaney Gardens is a battle over the future of public housing in Dublin and across the State.”
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Build and sell at max price due to city centre location…then use that ‘extra’ money to build more houses/apartments on less valuable land in the suburbs.
@SF Knee Knockers: Quite right, old bean. Throw the plebs out to the hinterlands.
@SF Knee Knockers: but if Bartra are getting the profits, your cunning plan isn’t going to work.
@SF Knee Knockers: I love the smell of gentrification in the morning
@SF Knee Knockers: no, let’s build free high spec houses close to employment centres for people who never worked and never will.
Meanwhile, actual workers do a 3 hour commute every day to pay for these houses as well as their own modest commuter-belt homes.
Oh wait! – that’s strangely what we’re already doing.
@Thomas Sheridan: Problem is : I have no entitlement to housing on the basis that I am a worker, and have been for the past 37 years, and never will have, not because of social housing, but because rents and house prices are so high.
When my parents got a council house in the 70s, they were delighted. Guess where it was, on the edge of the town because that was where land was economical to buy for this purpose. We now have a bunch of entitled people who think social housing should be built in prime.locations!! Crazy. Get out of that garden…
@Lar Meyler: Yes, let’s keep repeating the same mistakes. Social housing ghettos won’t benefit anyone. This idea of entitled people simply doesn’t add up anymore. When people earning high salaries can’t afford to buy. We need to create homes not falsely inflated properties.
@Mango mango: Do what happens in every other city, buy where you can afford. And ifnit is social housing, it will be further out or in big apartment blocks like London.
@Mango mango: And I can tell you mate, not all council estates became ghettos, some definitely prospered.with many of the kids moving on to comfortable lives.
In my opinion, it all comes down to the people.in the council.houses. If they become Ghettos, it is because at least some.of the people living there were trash. Move same people into a mixed dwelling, and it will become a ghetto. Case in point, some current mixed developments in the North Wall area..
@Lar Meyler: well if you’re suggesting they be built on the outskirts of towns, where the likelihood there isn’t even public transport, then they are indeed likely to become ghettos. The fact is there are more than enough boarded up housing units and infill sites to stop this urban sprawl.
@EillieEs: The only way to stop sprawl is to build up. What you suggest will merely delay the inevitable. And someone has to live on the outskirts whether they be private or social. There is no escaping that!
This makes no sense. Why can’t the council build a mix of social and private housing themselves? Sell the private, make a profit and repeat somewhere else. Having a safe comfortable home shouldn’t be an unattainable commodity.
@Mango mango: Because the council have to get funding from central Govt.and that won’t happen unless Eoghan Murphy gets his way on behalf of his developer pals. More to the point why would any council build social housing only for it to be sold to tenants at a loss, which is where the law stands at the moment. If councils hadn’t been forced to sell social housing to tenants we’d still have thousands of publicly owned housing units for those in most need.
@Mango mango: Why would anyone buy a private house with their own $$$ where there is social housing unless the houses are sold at a discount?,Putting it straight,.there is no other up side for the private buyer, just unnecessary risk…
All about the money. Social housing is dead.
FFG have ensured so. You vote em , you deep their ways …
All about the money ..
Same thing was happening with glass bottle site in Ringsend. Big crowd of people on high salaries talking for ages about percentage of social/affordable/private. Nothing is built. For the amount of money they received in salaries half of the site could be built.
That’s a lovely statue of our Lady
The councillors in Dublin City are in favour of open borders, therefore complicit in the ongoing operation to replace indigenous working-class Inner-City Dubliners. They are deliberately making the city a hostile place for families and small independent businesses because they want the prime land to build hotels etc.
@Mary’s Abbey: More alt right conspiracy bs. We don’t have open borders. There is no “operation” to replace “indigenous” dubs (whatever that is). This is all about free market ideology versus social responsibility. The free market doesnt give a toss about skin colour, orientation, religion or anything else.. just the money.
@Mary’s Abbey: what a load of rubbish. They are trying to build a mixed development for all parts of society but that is still not good enough. No hotel on this development
@john s: During the council meeting, while the redevelopment of O’Devany Gardens was still under discussion, the Council Chamber was invaded by a gang of the far-left thugs. Therefore the councillor’s and the city managers had to abandon the chamber before the meeting had concluded. So nobody knows what exactly will happen on that site.
Mixed housing is the way to go. Bartra capital and the likes are pure dirt who want to divide society in the pursuit of maximum profits. FG 101
@John Henderson: is this not a mixed development covering all . Social affordable private so what more do u want.
@john s: Barta didn’t pay for the site, this large publicly-owned site is to be gifted to a developer who, in turn will then sell the housing units at market value back to the Council.
Soc dems greens and labour giving public land to developers is shocking,as they said on the doorsteps they would oppose this FG FF policy of enriching developers.
Very confusing
No one wants a social housing getto like there was there before.
Here is an idea do not redevelop. Stick some paint up and let all the people who used to live there move back in. No more arguments simple
@john s: that could prove difficult it seems the place has been levelled
Surely the Madness here is giving away public owned land to a private developer and then having to buy back houses to rent out. You can be sure that figure of 30% will be eroded away over time. And affordable to buy is a joke . Not affordable to the average waged.
“Murphy added that the government believes in mixed-tenure when it comes to housing and said it wanted to build sites for all members of the public, including a mix of private, social and affordable homes.”
Members of the public shouldn’t be paying current market rents either, they are destroying eo
21 million for St Mary’s Mansions. 80 apartments – avg cost €260k per apartment. Planned look of it showed decent sized balconies. In reality they delivered ting corrugated iron balcony. Awful awful awful – who oversees this shit.
have your say