Sir, – A number of your correspondents and contributors, and an Irish Times editorial, incorrectly claim that hundreds of “objections” are frustrating plans for housing in Dublin’s Dunsink. In fact, these were “submissions” to a six-week statutory public consultation, a democratic step that is best practice for good outcomes.
Inviting submissions on to the public record ensures transparency, with the benefit of keeping third parties out of the shadows and out of the courts.
Villainising public participation and labelling citizens as “Nimbys” - a pejorative to discourage democratic engagement – only serves to misdirect attention from the real challenges in housing. Cui bono?
Claims of hindrance are debunked by the fact that there are currently 46,722 ready-to-go, yet unbuilt, permissions for houses and apartments in Dublin, all of which have recently successfully navigated the system.
READ MORE
More broadly, one person’s “delay” is another’s due diligence. We know too well the social, environmental and economic costs of ill-considered development. – Yours, etc,
ORLA HEGARTY,
Assistant professor,
School of architecture, planning & environmetal policy,
UCD.
Sir, – I read David McWilliams article on the proposed Dunsink development with great interest (“People with houses are denying them to those with none,” August 8th).
As a homeowner in Finglas, I feel it is necessary to make a number of points. First, our traffic and transport infrastructure is thinly stretched as it is, without the additional stress of 18,000 new dwellings. The apparent inability of our Government to build a MetroLink does not give me any confidence in their ability to resolve this issue.
[ The Dunsink plan shows Ireland has a lesson to learn from the SovietsOpens in new window ]
Second, there are not enough schools or special needs places in an area with many young families. Where are the schools going to be built, or the teachers recruited?
Third, our hardworking local gardaí are under-resourced in this area. How many more gardaí will be recruited for the new development?
Finally, the area intended for the development is an important biodiversity hub for wildlife and an important outdoor amenity for local families.
Could anyone make constructive responses to these concerns without accusing me of Nimby-ism or self-serving obstructionism? – Yours, etc,
PATRICK ROGERS,
Finglas,
Dublin.
Sir, – David McWilliams’s article on Dunsink is disappointing because it turns a legitimate debate about how we plan a big new town into a contest between people who have homes and people who do not.
Almost 400 submissions were made on the Dunsink plan. Describing these collectively as “objections”, and residents as people intent on “obstructing” a solution to the housing crisis, is loaded language. People can strongly support building more homes while having genuine concerns about how a new town of up to 18,500 homes and 46,000 people will function.
[ Dunsink: Is a Dublin county council planning to build 18,500 homes on a dump?Opens in new window ]
Asking how those people will travel, where their children will go to school and when the necessary infrastructure will be delivered is not Nimby-ism. It is precisely what a proper planning process should address. It is unfortunate that residents are the ones being forced to ask these questions rather than the answers being integral to the plan in the first place.
McWilliams frequently praises better-functioning European cities. One of the lessons from them is surely that transport and other critical infrastructure should be planned and delivered alongside, and where necessary in advance of, big development. He effectively acknowledges this himself when he argues that the Luas and bus infrastructure should be delivered before Dunsink is built.
Ireland badly needs housing, and Dunsink offers an opportunity to provide it at scale. Rather than blaming residents for raising legitimate concerns, we should demand that the State gets the planning and infrastructure right. – Yours, etc,
KEITH KENNEDY,
Ashtown,
Dublin 15.
