WITH Limerick City and County Council already considerably behind in its 10-year development plan for housing delivery, councillors this week voted to reduce the number of apartment units in one proposed development in Raheen.
As part of the decision, the cost of the remaining apartments in the proposed Ballycummin Road development will also be hit by an increase in cost by an estimated €60,000 per unit.
This came following the Part 8 procedure of the proposed construction of a three-to-five storey building, comprising 20 residential units, at Ballycummin Road, which was up for consideration at the monthly Metropolitan District meeting on Monday.
The scheme includes plans for two five-bed ground floor community units, one one-bed ground floor unit, nine two-bed units, eight two-bed universal design units, and a community room.
The site works also include the removal of 13 public car spaces on Ballycummin Road, a new vehicular entrance, 15 new car spaces, a covered bin store, and 30 bike spaces, as well as all ancillary works and the provision of associated landscape works.
The Council’s Senior Executive Quantity Surveyor, Conor Cooneys told the meeting that the development includes a distance of more than 20 metres, between it and all neighbouring property boundaries.
The building, he explained, varies in height from three to five storeys, with the three-storey section positioned along the western boundary near St Nessan’s Church. The five-storey section extends eastward away from the church.
Enable Ireland, Mr Cooney revealed, won an expression of interest to run the two community home units for adult users with disabilities, including a bedroom in each unit for a full-time carer and nurse.
“The success of this project relies on delivering as many units as possible to spread fixed costs across a large quantity of units. A reduction of, say, five units, leaving only three four-floors, will result in a potential increase in cost of each of the remaining units,” he warned Council members.
“This change would lead to its considerate decrease in value for money as a higher cost per unit will be required to carry these fixed expenses. If there is a disruption of floors, the site will become financially uneconomical and may not proceed.”
Concerned residents from the Raheen area attended the meeting in Merchants Quay, where councillors discussed the matter for close on two hours.
When called upon for his opinion, Mayor of Limerick John Moran said that he hadn’t heard an awful lot of people objecting to the 20-unit housing development.
“Limerick is delivering about 800 homes a year against a need of somewhere between 2,500 and 4,000. We have to house up to 50,000 people in Limerick in the next 15 to 16 years. It is essential that we can build houses for people and that comes at a cost to us all in terms of our current situation,” Mayor Moran said.
Fine Gael councillor and Raheen native Daniel Butler warned that there is already a huge parking issue in the locality with “cars literally abandoned everywhere”.
Cllr Butler also claimed he was “concerned that we are going to repeat the mistakes of the 90s that I saw growing up in the area in terms of height and scale”.
The City West representative also took the view that the Ballycummin development would be built too high. Suggesting compromise to meet the concerns of local residents, while giving the development a chance of viability, he proposed the removal of floors four and five – taking away five apartments.
This, he was informed, would impact the cost of each unit by €60,000. Before a vote was taken on this amendment, Green Party councillor Sean Hartigan asked for some clarification.
“If we vote for, we’re losing five much-needed units. If we vote against, we’re losing eight much-needed housing units,” he said, referring to another proposal brought before the chamber.
“We are told by the design team that both of these are not viable options. So, in effect, we’re losing 20 housing units. We’re throwing the baby out with the bath water, is that right?” Cllr Hartigan inquired.
Cllr Butler’s counter motion was passed by 11 votes to six.
