Housing

boetstark

Please looking for a bit of advice or opinion. We live in a very settled quiet residential area on the outskirts of a city. It's a beautiful community where our neighbours have become among our best friends.
We live on a row of 8 houses and for past 18 years we have had just green fields behind us. Every house has spent thousands of euro enhancing our houses to maximise our location, sun rooms bigger patios, sun decks.
Due to housing crisis a developer has acquired the land and over Xmas put through a planning application for development. It's no ordinary development, it's high density, consisting duplexes, terrace and apartment blocks, 46.4 units per ha. Ideal for social housing units.
Already a load of houses in a nearby development has been bought by a charity for social housing.
I fear that the area will turn into a ghetto. I apologise if this offends people but this scenario has been proven time and time again.
We as a group of 10 householders are obviously going to object.
Do we have any hope
1 changing the plans to lower density family friendly housing
2 stopping plans completely
Or should we look at just selling up and move on.
Sorry for a long post

Baby01032012

selling up and moving on sounds a bit drastic....make sure each and everyone of you submit an objection
possibly consult with a planner or architect who might be able to advise you how best to object
Have you looked at the local development plan if any or the county development plan...id assume the area being developed is zoned for resi development
Definitely if it is city based it will be high rise...developments in cities nowdays are rejected for not being dense enough...depends on what else is in the area in terms of height...unlikely apartments will be higher than 3/4 floors and there has to be provision for greenfield/parking etc. so unlikely to overlook you....thats life...you were lucky

Caranica

High density housing is necessary for a developer to get planning permission on a green field site near a city. Applications for low density will be rejected as not utilising the space fully.

It sounds like the site will be built on, whether these plans or other plans so your years of peace are going to come to an end. Always the risk with buying near what could be a site in the future.

By all means, submit an observation to the planning authority, lobby your public representatives to do the same. But government housing policy is very aggressive so unless there's a major issue with the site, it's likely to get the green light.

Mrs OBumble

boetstark wrote: »

....lower density family friendly housing

High density housing is not necessarily family un-friendly.

DubCount

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

High density housing is not necessarily family un-friendly.

no - but the "ideal for social housing" is likely to be the real concern here.

I'm not saying social housing neighbours are bad neighbours, but that is OP's worry IMHO.

boetstark

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

High density housing is not necessarily family un-friendly.

I can't imagine too many families looking to live in 1 bed and 2 bed apartments. 2 bed duplex units and terrace units with no gardens

boetstark

DubCount wrote: »

no - but the "ideal for social housing" is likely to be the real concern here.

I'm not saying social housing neighbours are bad neighbours, but that is OP's worry IMHO.

Definitely you cannot tar all people living in social housing.
I worry when the majority of housing is for rental and social housing. In a new estate next door, in addition to the 20% social, a housing Co operative has bought a block of 46 houses.
I really worry about our calibre of local planners

endofrainbow

If it's going to be as bad as you think, would you even get a buyer for your property ?

boetstark

endofrainbow wrote: »

If it's going to be as bad as you think, would you even get a buyer for your property ?

Terrible. A local auctioneer told me you could easily write 60k off value of our houses.

DM1983

Was in this situation last year. We moved house and now have a situation where we will never be overlooked by any future development. I would make the same decision again. If buying another house in the future I won't buy a site that adjoins undeveloped land.

boetstark

DM1983 wrote: »

Was in this situation last year. We moved house and now have a situation where we will never be overlooked by any future development. I would make the same decision again. If buying another house in the future I won't buy a site that adjoins undeveloped land.

I could live with the privacy issue on its own but bloody social housing apartments and high density units. Have local authorities learned from mistakes from the past.
Do you mind me asking, did you sell before construction begun and was it difficult to sell

Caranica

You don't know that it will be social housing, you are looking at the worst case scenario. High density is an inevitability near cities. Nothing you can do about that. National housing policy is about building much needed housing and utilising sites efficiently. The days of building 3/4 bed semi detached houses with front and back gardens are numbered.

Endintheclowns

Think you are worrying unnecessarily OP. Even if it's social housing most newer developments don't end up like Darndale or Moyross and it's usually a mix of social and affordable houses/apartments anyway.

boetstark

boetstark wrote: »

bloody social housing apartments and high density units. Have local authorities learned from mistakes from the past.

Ah yeah, no way would you tar all social housing recipients with the same brush.
My advice is sell now and buy in the middle of a big field miles away from anywhere. You can't pick your neighbours!

boetstark

Caranica wrote: »

You don't know that it will be social housing, you are looking at the worst case scenario. High density is an inevitability near cities. Nothing you can do about that. National housing policy is about building much needed housing and utilising sites efficiently. The days of building 3/4 bed semi detached houses with front and back gardens are numbered.

As I said very small units so can't imagine many families going for 2 bed units.

DM1983

boetstark wrote: »

I could live with the privacy issue on its own but bloody social housing apartments and high density units. Have local authorities learned from mistakes from the past.
Do you mind me asking, did you sell before construction begun and was it difficult to sell

For us it was more the privacy even though it was part V and so guaranteed large element of social and affordable. We were going to go from not being overlooked at all to being massively overlooked from the back and side. I was surprised that we didn't have to take more of a haircut selling. It was less than 10% of original market value. There are some people out there who would hate to be so overlooked (me!) and others who couldn't care less. You just need to find the right buyer.

Caranica

boetstark wrote: »

As I said very small units so can't imagine many families going for 2 bed units.

Couples with no children. Single parent with a child...they're still families. I liv in a mixed (private) development of 1,2 and 3 bed apartments/duplexes and 3 and 4 bed houses. Most of the 2 bed apartments are 2 parents plus 2 kids. Others have older couples who downsized or older siblings who live together. You really are overthinking this.

Mrs OBumble

boetstark wrote: »

I can't imagine too many families looking to live in 1 bed and 2 bed apartments. 2 bed duplex units and terrace units with no gardens

If it's social housing, then 1brm is usually old people.

Granny-watch is usually the best security that a neighbourhood can have.

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

<MOD SNIP>

overshoot

boetstark wrote: »

It's no ordinary development, it's high density, consisting duplexes, terrace and apartment blocks, 46.4 units per ha. Ideal for social housing units.

Do we have any hope
1 changing the plans to lower density family friendly housing
2 stopping plans completely

From an Architect....

If you have a train or Luas station within 1km, perhaps a high frequency bus line (10mins peak), An Bord Pleanala will want the development to have a minimum of 45 Units per hectare if your on the edge of a city as you say & the land is zoned residential. So its quite ordinary and may not be anything to do with social outside of the standard Part V (10% social) requirements.... so to answer 1 & 2... unlikely, this is the reality of planning requrirements in a housing crisis.

Most developers would still happily just build houses in the suburban locations as its where the real money is, but its impossible to hit 45 UPH without apartments. The apartments will likely be designed as Build to Rent and sold off to a fund in one piece although depending on the scale of the development a block may form the Part V (social) provision.

Harpy

boetstark wrote: »

Definitely you cannot tar all people living in social housing.
I worry when the majority of housing is for rental and social housing. In a new estate next door, in addition to the 20% social, a housing Co operative has bought a block of 46 houses.
I really worry about our calibre of local planners

Im sure I know the area you are talking about..is the development your talking about. Is the above separate to the previously planned 850 houses for the area??

If so this is going to be an awful lot of houses coming onto an already congested area on the mornings.

OP, see can you get a plan for the site.

This is going back a few years, but a friend of mine was in a similar situation to you. I don't know the exact ins and outs of getting the plans, but their estate got together and made a community group, and although they knew they wouldn't have any hope of getting the plans quashed, they did get them changed.

To apply it to your case, try and find out what's overlooking you. If it's duplexes or terraced houses, start making noise. What you want overlooking you are the detached houses or semi-d's, as these are the ones more likely to be privately owned. The council rarely (never?) get the detached houses, and although they're not 'supposed' to do it, they do tend to bunch all the social houses together.


Could be worth a try.


Failing that, if you're willing to make a nuisance of yourselves, you could ask that the developer moves the 'boundary' of their site back about 10ft from where it's supposed to be, to allowed the planting of hedging/trees/etc to create what would effectively be a 'dead space' barrier between the two areas (a friend of mine just found out that the land behind them is getting built on, and thats what she reckons they're gonna try to do, whether or not they'll have any success is another thing).


Failing that, off to the local garden centre and spend a couple of hundred euro on fast growing hedging plants and plant them at the bottom of all your gardens, to create your own barrier.

Del2005

boetstark wrote: »

I could live with the privacy issue on its own but bloody social housing apartments and high density units. Have local authorities learned from mistakes from the past.

We didn't have any high density developments in the past, so what ever mistakes local authorities made where in low density developments.

Mrs OBumble

Del2005 wrote: »

We didn't have any high density developments in the past, so what ever mistakes local authorities made where in low density developments.

Eh? Rahoon Flats ranged from 4 to 7 stories. Not really low density. Some shots in here: https://www.rte.ie/archives/collections/news/21238709-vandalism-at-rahoon-flats/

CollyFlower

boetstark wrote: »

Please looking for a bit of advice or opinion. We live in a very settled quiet residential area on the outskirts of a city. It's a beautiful community where our neighbours have become among our best friends.
We live on a row of 8 houses and for past 18 years we have had just green fields behind us. Every house has spent thousands of euro enhancing our houses to maximise our location, sun rooms bigger patios, sun decks.
Due to housing crisis a developer has acquired the land and over Xmas put through a planning application for development. It's no ordinary development, it's high density, consisting duplexes, terrace and apartment blocks, 46.4 units per ha. Ideal for social housing units.
Already a load of houses in a nearby development has been bought by a charity for social housing.
I fear that the area will turn into a ghetto. I apologise if this offends people but this scenario has been proven time and time again.
We as a group of 10 householders are obviously going to object.
Do we have any hope
1 changing the plans to lower density family friendly housing
2 stopping plans completely
Or should we look at just selling up and move on.
Sorry for a long post

Have you been offered compensation for the intrusion?.. This happening in an area I know, homes were being overlooked by the buildings, the residence were given compensation.

boetstark

CollyFlower wrote: »

Have you been offered compensation for the intrusion?.. This happening in an area I know, homes were being overlooked by the buildings, the residence were given compensation.

Not a cent

Del2005

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Eh? Rahoon Flats ranged from 4 to 7 stories. Not really low density. Some shots in here: https://www.rte.ie/archives/collections/news/21238709-vandalism-at-rahoon-flats/

Doesn't look like a high density development, but I can't find any info on it so don't know what the units per hectare was. Not that it matters as we had plenty of issues with low density developments all over the country

So even if it is a development is high density the issue isn't with the density of a development it's with our society and the lack of action on anti social behaviour by our justice system.