Officials in Dublin City Council are continuing to pursue a deal which would see 80 per cent of the 1,047 homes planned for the former O’Devaney Gardens site retained as “public housing”.
The council said it remains in negotiations with developer Bartra and an approved housing body in relation to the acquisition of apartments which had been tied up in legal action taken by Bartra against An Bord Pleanála.
The board last September granted permission for the 1,047 homes in blocks up to 14 storeys tall at the former council flat complex near the Phoenix Park, with a condition which restricted potential sales to "individual purchasers".
While 30 per cent of the O’Devaney Gardens homes have been be reserved for social housing and 20 per cent for affordable purchase, the remaining 50 per cent were available to Bartra to sell privately.
Bartra said the viability of the project would be affected by the condition which meant corporate entities could not buy the properties.
The company said it asked the board to correct what it claimed was an error in the planning permission but when this did not occur it initiated judicial review proceedings against the board’s decision.
The board last Friday amended its permission to “clarify and confirm” that the condition only applied to houses and duplex units not apartments in the development.
Almost all of the new homes at O’Devaney Gardens will be apartments, with just 43 houses and duplexes. However, all these houses and duplexes are already earmarked for use for social or affordable housing and will not be offered to the private market.
The council said on Sunday it is continuing negotiations with Bartra to secure an additional 30 per cent of the 1,047 homes for a cost-rental scheme. This could see 314 of the 524 apartments Bartra is permitted to sell being retained for public housing.
However, Independent city councillor Cieran Perry said the council should immediately pull out of all deals with Bartra.
“The council should rescind all agreements with Bartra and build public housing themselves using emergency powers.”
Bartra had not met deadlines to begin work on the scheme, Mr Perry said. While the council had allowed the company some leeway due to Covid-19 related delays, the decision of Bartra to take legal action had pushed the development beyond an acceptable deadline extension he said.
“For this reason I believe the council is entitled to rescind its agreement with Bartra,” Mr Perry said.
A spokesman for Bartra said it could not comment on the matter as it remained before the courts.
