Submission to an Board Pleanála on Phibsborough Shopping Centre Co-Living Proposal
Below is the text of my letter to An Bord Pleanála setting out my concerns concerning a proposal for 321 Build to Rent co-living spaces on the Phibsborough Shopping Centre site (PL29N.308875)
To whom this may concern,
I wish to record my concerns about the proposed change of planning permission to that already granted for the redevelopment of Phibsborough Shopping Centre.
Firstly, it is important to state that redevelopment of Phibsborough Shopping Centre is long overdue, and I believe there is a strong desire among many in the Phibsborough community to see this project commenced as soon as possible.
The redevelopment of the Dalymount site is an even more important project for this part of the city. Together the development of the new plaza and shopping area in the shopping centre and the community, cultural and sporting amenity in the new Dalymount will have a profound impact on the revival and vibrancy of the Phibsborough urban village.
Furthermore, the realisation of the full potential of Dalymount Park depends on the redevelopment of the shopping centre with regard to access to the stadium and the landscape that will exist adjacent to the stadium. In that context, it is important that both be developed in tandem with each other or as close to that as possible.
However, it is with great concern that I note the latest planning application for the shopping centre and in particular the proposal to convert the permitted the 341 student accommodation units to 321 co-living units. The residential component of the shopping centre accounts for 61.9% of the total floor area of the project and as such will have a major impact on the overall nature of the redevelopment.
In the previous planning application in 2017/2018, I along with others made it clear in our written appeal and in the oral hearing that there is a major need for conventional residential apartments in the area and that the wider locality is already overly concentrated with transient accommodation. I repeat that call in this submission.
Specifically, regarding the co-living proposal, my concerns are threefold;
1. The case is not proven for co-living demand in the area.
The case is made that co-living accommodation in Phibsborough is needed because of “rental affordability pressures in the area” along with a perceived increased desire for communal living among ‘Generation Z’ residents.
In the first instance, this case directly conflicts with existing planning guidelines on shared accommodation.
Sustainable Urban Housing Design Standards for New Apartments (March 2018) sets out that shared accommodation is appropriate where responding to an “identified housing need” which is specified as for “new employees arriving in urban areas and seeking short term accommodation.” Therefore, the problem to be remedied is one of tenancy and not affordability as identified by the applicants above. Furthermore, section 5.18 of the Sustainable Urban Housing Design Standards for New Apartments (March 2018) sets out that shared accommodation is “not envisaged as an alternative or replacement to the more conventional apartment.”
The applicants’ “Co-living demand and location analysis” specifically sets out that the project in question is “not short term accommodation.” If that is the case, then it would appear the application is attempting to replace conventional accommodation.
The question arises as the precise length of stay intended by the applicants for this project and it is not tenable that the Bord would make a decision in the absence of such information.
In the second instance, the co-living solution put forward does not meet the actual housing need in the Phibsborough and wider north-west inner city area. It is the housing need in this area and not the housing need for the wider city that must be considered by the Bord.
As of the start of 2020, some 3,000 persons were on the Dublin City Council waiting lists in the north inner city, the majority of whom are single adults seeking one bed accommodation. In addition, the average rental price of a one-bedroom apartment in Dublin 7, as of Q3 2020, of €1634, was 60% of post-tax income of a worker on average earnings in this country. There is a serious housing affordability problem in the area, but one which shared accommodation as a temporary type of accommodation will not resolve.
2. There is already an over-concentration of transient accommodation in existence and going through the planning system in the north west inner city.
This planning application must be assessed alongside existing temporary accommodation provision in the area and planned temporary accommodation planned in the area.
Unlike for PBSA applications, no report indicating the number of similar extant or proposed developments within a 1km radius is required for co-living developments. In the case of this planning proposal, it is vital that the proximity of PBSA developments must be looked at.
At present, some 1086 co-living units are currently going through the planning system within 1.6km of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre site.
In Winter 2020, Dublin City Council granted permission for the temporary use of up to 1325 student accommodation units as tourist and short term accommodation until May 2021 in the north west inner city. These four units are located within just 1.1km of the Phibsborough Shopping Centre site.
Given the high level of uncertainty that surrounds the future delivery of higher education and the flow of international students to Dublin, there is strong reason to believe these student accommodation units may have to consider their future product offering.
3. An Bord Pleanála must consider that there is insufficient regulation within national planning and residential tenancy legislation to guarantee protections to those living there.
An Bord Pleanála must take a long-term perspective. It must take account of the protections that are in place – or not – to ensure that facilities operate as currently intended (for individuals and couples only), and also of the fact that co-living developments are not covered under existing standard tenancy protections.
It is not specified in the planning application whether a licence or lease arrangement will be in place. If a license agreement is to be put in place between management company and facility user, this would be akin to a contract for a stay in hotel with all the lack of residential tenancy rights for the user and all the power weighted on the side of the management company.
In this context, it is vital that if An Bord Pleanála are minded to grant permission, clear conditions must be set out regarding the specific and appropriate type of contractual arrangement between resident and management company, the occupation profile of the facility and the length of stay in the facility. The design of the shared living space intended for short term occupancy means that such facilities are the antithesis of long-term secure accommodation and must never become a substitute for such.
Such is the scale and depth of the housing affordability crisis in Dublin city that it is easy to imagine that families would find themselves forced to take up residence in co-living facilities because of the lack of any other affordable option. Again if An Bord Pleanala rule in favour, there is an onus to ensure enforceable planning conditions are in place preventing the above scenario.
Finally, there is a very real concern that this development is seen as a severe over-concentration of transient housing in the area, which is inconsistent with the actual housing need in the locality. Ultimately, the question arises as to what weight the Bord will place on actual housing need versus the preference by the applicant for a particular housing type for the area.
I ask you to carefully consider and address the above concerns when ruling on this planning application.
Yours Sincerely,
Senator Marie Sherlock