A plan that began the summer promising up to 18,400 homes ended the week promising somewhere between 5,400 and 15,000. That range, adopted by Fingal councillors on Thursday evening after four days of marathon meetings on the Dunsink Urban Area Plan, tells us a good deal about how strategic housing land is shaped in this country, and about who really controls the pace of delivery.
The context matters. Dunsink is a 435-hectare area inside the M50, between Castleknock and Finglas, with the old landfill set aside as a park. It is precisely the kind of well-located, publicly significant land that national policy says should carry compact, higher-density growth. The June draft drew more than 1,000 submissions, many from Finglas residents worried about tall buildings at their back walls and years of construction lorries on narrow local roads. Councillors worked through around 240 proposed changes and, in the end, 30 of the 40 members voted to make the plan.
Much of what changed is sound planning. Removing the "gateway" towers of 15 storeys or more beside two-storey estates, replacing an eastern block with open space, and insisting on a careful interface between new and existing neighbourhoods are the kinds of adjustments any experienced planner would recognise as good practice. Directing construction traffic to the N3, the M50 and Dunsink Lane is simply common sense. A plan that has listened to its neighbours is more likely to survive scrutiny and less likely to end up in the High Court.
The harder question is what the density reductions and the infrastructure conditions do to delivery. Councillors backed a motion requiring a Luas Tyrrelstown extension to be under construction or operational in Phase 2, at a time when the National Transport Authority lists that scheme as a post-2042 project. Fingal's director of planning warned that this could stop development at that point. Uisce Éireann has separately said full development of Phases 2 and 3 depends on the Water Supply Project and Greater Dublin Drainage. In effect, the first 2,500 homes, which the council wants permitted and under construction by 2029, are reasonably secure; much of what follows is hostage to decisions made elsewhere.
There is a respectable counter-argument, and it deserves a fair hearing. Ireland has a long history of building homes first and transport and services decades later, and the communities left behind by that approach are entitled to ask for something better. Tying growth to a Luas line is, in principle, exactly what plan-led development should mean. Similarly, the restriction on bulk sales of own-door and duplex homes to institutional investors reflects a genuine public wish to see homes on public land go to people who will live in them.
My view is that the councillors were right on the principle but have chosen a blunt instrument. A hard trigger linking housing phases to a project the transport authority does not expect for nearly two decades risks turning a strategic land bank into a long-term reserve, while demand simply spills out to less sustainable locations further from the city. A better approach would be to set clear, monitored thresholds with interim bus and active travel measures, and to place the obligation squarely on the State bodies to bring forward the rail and water investment, rather than on the homes waiting behind it.
Council planners now have about three weeks to decide whether any changes are material and need to go back on public display. Whatever the outcome, Dunsink is a test of whether local plans can be both responsive to communities and honest about delivery. On Thursday's evidence, the first part has been achieved. The second is still to be proved.
No comments:
Post a Comment