Fingal CoCo buys 400.000K Home in The Naul for Traveller Family

Alan Farrell

LeoB wrote: »

However its not suprising as Fingal seem to have a covert plan of sorts to house people (travellers).

The Traveller Accommodation Plan is a public document and sites are highlighted on Development Plan Maps which are on the Council website.

That being said, I suspect this might be something very specific which is why a "site" of this nature was purchased. I am to be briefed on it tomorrow.

LeoB wrote: »

I would always encourage the lads at work and my friends to vote but how can we expect people to have faith in our elected representatives when we see this happen

I don't see how not voting will resolve anything. Disenfranchising yourself when you clearly want to have a voice is counter productive.

LeoB wrote: »

As for Anne Devitt, did she not have an issue a few years ago with some sort of half way house or sheltered accomadation being put beside her? You cant excuse her because Clare Daly is also on the committee. Think you know my views on socialist Daly!! Who else is on the committee?

(Don't you mean comrade Daly?) The Committee is a statutory body with Councillors and non councillor members. The Councillors are Daly, Devitt & Labours Cian O'Callaghan. There are representative bodies and members of the public too.

sNarah wrote: »

Strangly enough this is WELL below the going rate for The Naul.

I didn't want to say in my first post but that much land in Naul is actually not bad.

T-Maxx wrote: »

The real issue here IMO is whether this kind of expense on a single traveller family can be justified

I think this is the only issue to be honest.

LeoB

Alan Farrell wrote: »

The Traveller Accommodation Plan is a public document and sites are highlighted on Development Plan Maps which are on the Council website.

I am to be briefed on it tomorrow.



I don't see how not voting will resolve anything. Disenfranchising yourself when you clearly want to have a voice is counter productive.

(Don't you mean comrade Daly?) The Committee is a statutory body with Councillors and non councillor members. The Councillors are Daly, Devitt & Labours Cian O'Callaghan. There are representative bodies and members of the public too.

I didn't want to say in my first post but that much land in Naul is actually not bad.

I think this is the only issue to be honest.

The plan I dont have a problem with. I do have a problem where someone is offered a deal to guarentee them rental income and the council go a put a family of travellers into a terraced house with elderley neighbours.

It is disgraceful you are only being briefed tomorrow. Should you not have been kept in the loop on such a contencious issue?

As you know Alan a lot of people dont bother to turn out to vote anymore because they are fed up of things like this, the trip to Brazil and what some see as wasted money on conferances. I have never failed to vote since I got my vote

It seems comrade Daly and her fellow committee members have kept this quiet for a while now.The council have been looking at property in that area since late last year. Again this is not right nor fair on their fellow councillors. When you say members of the public are they from the areas effected? effected may not be the best word to use here.

Agree the issue here is did the council get value for money. I would say no.
Have the council ever considered taking over a half finished estate and rehousing the people already there and keeping the whole estate for Traveller accomadition. It would save the Banks bulldozing near finished houses and would push decent people up the housing list. Lets be totally honest none of us if any want the steryotypical traveller family as our next door neighbours, rubbish, scrap, noise.......
I know quite well a number of traveller families who have settled well in North Dublin but they have cut their links totally to the traveller community. I also know of 2 families who have brought nothing but bad feeling to areas where they respect nothing or no one.

Alan Farrell

LeoB wrote: »

The plan I dont have a problem with. I do have a problem where someone is offered a deal to guarentee them rental income and the council go a put a family of travellers into a terraced house with elderley neighbours.

In fairness Leo, I didn't address the example you illustrated. People on the housing list are accommodated according to their needs and eligibility regardless of what community they hail from. Your example sounds like the RAS Scheme in which the Council may have made a mistake. I don't think that traveller families are commonly accepted onto this scheme.

LeoB wrote: »

It is disgraceful you are only being briefed tomorrow. Should you not have been kept in the loop on such a contencious issue?

My first post suggested that I did not recall this issue meaning I would suspect that it came up at a Traveller Accommodation Committee or perhaps a Balbriggan/Swords Area Committee. As I am not a member of either, I would not be briefed until it came to the full chamber, for a full Council meeting. Tomorrow's briefing was requested because I've had several emails from residents asking for a meeting (one of the emails was from the Ward Union!).

LeoB wrote: »

I have never failed to vote since I got my vote

Sorry, your previous response inferred (to me) that you weren't going to vote anymore, I see now you were referring to cajoling others into voting.

LeoB wrote: »

Have the council ever considered taking over a half finished estate and rehousing the people already there and keeping the whole estate for Traveller accomadition. It would save the Banks bulldozing near finished houses and would push decent people up the housing list.

I would hazard a guess at no, but its not a bad idea. Something that our legislators will have to consider. (will pass that on)

My issue with the traveller accommodation program is putting a family into a remote housing complex without providing them with sufficient infrastructure, both physical and social and expecting them to integrate into society. I don't believe that this is fair on an already marginalised community. (N1 @ Lissenhall/Moyne Road @ Baldoyle/Baskin Lane @ Kinsaley)

I am sure that some of the estates are very nice and the people fantastic but as I have highlighted for two years running at the Council's annual budget, We spend four times as much maintaining permanent traveller accommodation units as we do social housing units and that from a purely economic reason is unacceptable. I was voted down in 2008 and withdrew the proposal in 2009 (to reallocate the monies to community buildings (namely Brackenstown & Kinsealy/Melrose)). If the house at the Naul has been purchased, then the family in question must have very specific requirements such as health, welfare or perhaps family size which would justify the expense in the departments eyes.

The Hill Billy

Alan Farrell wrote: »

...Cllr Devitt cannot be solely blamed for this as the committee has other Councillors on it, including Clare Daly.

Alan Farrell wrote: »

(Don't you mean comrade Daly?)

LeoB wrote: »

It seems comrade Daly and her fellow committee members...

While you both may have personal issues with Cllr Daly - this thread & this forum should not be used to take swipes at her or any other councillor.

HB

Eoineo

Having read both the development plan 2005 - 1011, the travellers accommodation scheme & amendments I have issues with the Council's decision. I will refer to the appropriate sections below:

Part 7 of the Development Plan refers to social inclusion:

Policy SIP4
To avoid socially divisive outcomes or outcomes that might negatively affect the quality of life in
neighbourhoods or communities at risk of disadvantage.

It seems that the council have failed here. The level of outrage in the Kitchenstown area is increasing. No representative from the council has even attempted to speak to the residents to allay their very real fears to the best of my knowledge.

The Traveller's Accommodation Scheme Policy states:

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]Rural Villages[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]The council will provide 3 units of accommodation per annum for the lifetime of this plan.[/FONT]

Kitchenstown is NOT a rural village. Naul is a rural village. This property is situated beyond safe walking distance from Naul village. Kitchenstown is in the TOWNLAND of Naul, not the village.

Relating to the cost of the property & the ultimate cost over time.

Alan has already stated that the cost of maintaining Traveller Accommodation far exceeds the cost of maintaining "normal" council-type accommodation. As this property is more isolated it is likely that the costs will be higher again.

While it may be a bargain on paper (relating to the original market price), I believe that long term this will cost the council an amount that is not acceptable.

The property was being actively marketed far higher than the price it ultimately sold for. Some of the blame has to be laid at the door of the vendor who, desperate for a sale agreed a deal with Fingal without reducing the market price. If the market price had been publically reduced there was a chance he would have had more interest.

garfieldthedog

I’d imagine that the real issue here is not the amount spent on the house, but the location. If the Council had spent the same money on two smaller houses in a local council estate there wouldn’t be a word about it. The issue here is not the money, it’s the neighbours and who probably to a man or women believe the travellers in question should be housed.... just not in their back yard.
Exposing hypocrisy…….. priceless, for everything else there’s a council estate. Sure wouldn’t the traveller family be more comfortable there anyway.

Alan Farrell

I have now been briefed by the Housing Department of the Council and am in receipt of correspondents to and from it explaining the situation.

The Council, in the course of selecting this house and arranging its purchase did not consult with any committee of the Council, therefore no members were consulted prior to the deal being struck. The Traveller Consultative Committee, whose membership I outlined in a previous post were not informed of the purchase either.

The property was purchased under the Traveller Accommodation Programme (TAP) for a specific family identified by housing welfare officers.

While I still have questions regarding the location of this property given that Naul is one of the more expensive rural towns in Fingal, I am satisfied of the requirement of the council to purchase a property under TAP for this family. Please note that contrary to reports, the house was not purchased with 3.5 acres, the plot of the house is no larger than an average family garden.

I am generally dissatisfied that this matter came to my attention (and to other councillors) via the papers and will be recommending that councillors are informed prior to deals of this nature being done, for information purposes only.

sNarah

garfieldthedog wrote: »

I’d imagine that the real issue here is not the amount spent on the house, but the location. If the Council had spent the same money on two smaller houses in a local council estate there wouldn’t be a word about it. The issue here is not the money, it’s the neighbours and who probably to a man or women believe the travellers in question should be housed.... just not in their back yard.
Exposing hypocrisy…….. priceless, for everything else there’s a council estate. Sure wouldn’t the traveller family be more comfortable there anyway.

If they had spend the money on 2 smaller houses - even in the same location as house being discussed - then this thread would be non-existent.

dan_d

Actually the quote by Anne Devitt is very telling...she says the money will be reimbursed by the Dept of the Env.
So? Does that mean you take the attitude that the COCO spend large sums of money on items such as this, because they'll be reimbursed? I'm sure the Dept of the Env have a budget, but seriously, that amount of money for a rural house is ridiculous and given the way we are at the moment, things like that should be scrutinised. You could have rehomed at least 2 families for that amount.
Reading between the lines it would appear this location was chosen for specific reasons. And I'd imagine they are not necessarily good reasons.
The whole situation leaves a sour taste in my mouth, not even mentioning the fact that several individuals did the deal without informing all parties. That's the kind of behaviour we have to try and root out of the people with power in this coutry. If it's starting at grass roots level in county councils, then inevitably it's going to be outright corruption at gov level.

tbh

Alan Farrell wrote: »

I am generally dissatisfied that this matter came to my attention (and to other councillors) via the papers and will be recommending that councillors are informed prior to deals of this nature being done, for information purposes only.

sorry to quiz you on hypotheticals Alan, but if you had been informed, what would you have done? (that's not a leading question by the way!) I'm just curious as to the resources you have available in situations like this.

sNarah

Actually the quote by Anne Devitt is very telling...she says the money will be reimbursed by the Dept of the Env.
So? Does that mean you take the attitude that the COCO spend large sums of money on items such as this, because they'll be reimbursed?

Which are still funds gained by taxpayers levies. Which is why it pisses me off.

Eoineo

Alan can you confirm how many individuals are to be located in this house? The average domestic tank caters for a maximum of 8 residents and if any more than that were to be placed in the house the septic tank would have to be replaced/upgraded.

If this is the case how would the council fund the replacement of the existing septic tank? Including percolation tests, planning (even though Fingal CoCo are exempt they are obliged to notify the public and go through the process), and meeting the conditions of the 2009 EPA regulations?

Will the Dept of the Environment pay for the renovation of the house as well?

Either way it's still a waste of taxpayers money.

LeoB

It appears most here have a serious issue with this whole thing and the question of value.

I would be pretty p***ed off if I was a councillor and heard this through the Media.
Who are "The Council" who done the deal? Judging by the papers Anne Devitt is fairly ok with the deal, (I am not having a pop at her) but she should resign and so should her collegues on the committee. Something smells here with this deal.

It would be irresponsible of the council to put a large family out there I used to cycle a fair bit out that way and this is just as remote as you get in Fingal.

Beasty

Off-topic posts and any containing unsupported allegations/speculation will be deleted, and may result in infractions and/or bans

Beasty

Goldenquick

If this housing issue did not involve a family from the travelling community, would it even have hit the paper?

Alan Farrell

tbh wrote: »

sorry to quiz you on hypotheticals Alan, but if you had been informed, what would you have done?

Highlighted the matter before the transaction was completed and demand that I/We were properly informed. Councillors have no authority to stop a purchase under the TAP. Our opportunity to alter the TAP last presented itself in 2009.

If there was obvious wrongdoing, which I am not suggesting, then it would be within my remit to refer the matter to the County Manager or the Minister for investigation.

dan_d wrote: »

...several individuals did the deal without informing all parties...

I may criticise the council from time to time but the council staff are professionals. There is no wrongdoing in this transaction so far as I am aware.

Eoineo wrote: »

Alan can you confirm how many individuals are to be located in this house? Reports locally say up to 15 - 2 adults & 13 children. If this is the case then the entire septic tank will have to be replaced as the average domestic tank caters for a maximum of 8 residents.

How does the council intend to fund the renovation of the property & the replacement of the existing septic tank? Including percolation tests, planning (even though Fingal CoCo are exempt they are obliged to notify the public and go through the process), and meeting the conditions of the 2009 EPA regulations?

Will the Dept of the Environment pay for that as well?

Either way it's still a waste of taxpayers money.

I'm afraid I cannot confirm how many people will be in the house. I don't think that it would be in their interest to inform all in sundry as to their particulars. They are a completely innocent party in this matter. The properties septic tank, if managed properly, will suit the requirements of the family adequately so far as I am aware.

The renovation of the property, if required would be funded by the Council. Although the house was purchased for a particular family, it is a "council" house and could therefore suit the requirements of any person on our housing list.

LeoB wrote: »

I would be pretty p***ed off if I was a councillor and heard this through the Media.

I am a little, which is why I will be recommending that the council inform the councillors before or during a transaction so that we are in the know next time.

LeoB wrote: »

Who are "The Council" who done the deal? Judging by the papers Anne Devitt is fairly ok with the deal, (I am not having a pop at her) but she should resign and so should her collegues on the committee. Something smells here with this deal.
It would be irresponsible of the council to put a large family out there I used to cycle a fair bit out that way and this is just as remote as you get in Fingal.

I am confident that with the information I have been presented with by the staff of the housing department, the deal is completely above board.

tbh

Alan Farrell wrote: »

Highlighted the matter before the transaction was completed and demand that I/We were properly informed. Councillors have no authority to stop a purchase under the TAP. Our opportunity to alter the TAP last presented itself in 2009.

to what end tho? I mean if you don't have any power to stop the process, and it's a done deal, wouldn't that just put the spotlight on the family? ("local councilor slams decision to house family")

Eoineo

Beasty wrote: »

Off-topic posts and any containing unsupported allegations/speculation will be deleted, and may result in infractions and/or bans

Beasty

Apologies I've amended the offending post.


I think that the council spending €400,000 on one unit of council accommodation is astounding regardless of who is to be placed there.

kmick

On the plus side - nice house in need of repair on 3.4 acres coming on the market VERY cheaply in 3....2......1.

Betty131

Goldenquick wrote: »

If this housing issue did not involve a family from the travelling community, would it even have hit the paper?

Lets be realistic. No other family on any housing list in fingal or indeed other councils would even be given the option of a luxury house in the country.

Betty131

Eoineo wrote: »

NB - I will comment on a separate post.

Headline: Purchase for Travellers defended by Cllr Devitt

Fine Gael councellor Anne Devitt, who is a member of the Local Traveller Accommodation Consultative Committee defended the price paid for the property.
"€400,000 seems a pretty good price. I don't think it is an excessive price." she told the Fingal Independent.
"There is nothing unusual about it. Any money paid out will be reimbursed by the Department of the Environment."

I'm sorry but at a time when housing prices have dropped dramatically €400,000 is an excessive amount for one family. How many families other than families from the travelling community have the council spent €400,000 on. I'd love to see the figures.

tbh

Betty131 wrote: »

Lets be realistic. No other family on any housing list in fingal or indeed other councils would even be given the option of a luxury house in the country.

what are you basing that on?

Betty131

tbh wrote: »

what are you basing that on?

Apologies this was not meant to be a statement but rather an opinion. I should have worded it as follows I doubt any other family on any housing list in fingal or indeed other councils would even be given the option of a luxury house in the country.

tbh

and your opinion is based on what?

Martron

tbh wrote: »

and your opinion is based on what?

i would imagine their opinion is based on common sense. if the council was in the business in giving every family a luxury house in the countryside i would be on the list.

( this is not saying that that dont provide nice hiouses to other families)

tbh

Martron wrote: »

i would imagine their opinion is based on common sense. if the council was in the business in giving every family a luxury house in the countryside i would be on the list.

( this is not saying that that dont provide nice hiouses to other families)

so is the the case that non-travellers get normal houses, and travellers get luxury houses? I've no experience of this, so am looking for facts and figures.

Martron

tbh wrote: »

so is the the case that non-travellers get normal houses, and travellers get luxury houses? I've no experience of this, so am looking for facts and figures.

my mistake i thought you were trying to be smart. not sure how it works out but i imagine you are means tested on the amount of children you have and where you were from originally as in they try and house you in a familiar area.

tbh

Martron wrote: »

my mistake i thought you were trying to be smart. not sure how it works out but i imagine you are means tested on the amount of children you have and where you were from originally as in they try and house you in a familiar area.

perish the thought But if it were the case that you were means tested, wouldn't a settled family come out the same as a traveller family - unless you get extra "points" for being travellers - just wondering if thats the case. Betty obviously has a bit of knowledge on the subject, just wondering what her experiences are.

dsmythy

Goldenquick wrote: »

If this housing issue did not involve a family from the travelling community, would it even have hit the paper?

400k house? Yes, yes it would.

bcmf

Can someone tell me , if they know, why did they get a €400k house in a fairly nice area and not a council house in an estate. Are the council in the habit of buying nice big detached houses for people on their waiting lists.