The Sinn Féin TD has voiced his concerns to the Oireachtas housing committee, expressing that mixing social and private housing may lead to more segregation rather than cohesion amongst communities. Eoin Ó Broin, the Sinn Féin housing spokesperson, stated during a public hearing on the Planning and Development Bill that mixed-tenure housing was based on an unfounded belief that overpopulation of low-income families wasn’t desirable.
His contention was that there was no empirical data, neither in Ireland nor the OECD, which suggested that densely populated working-class areas were detrimental to housing policy. Despite the popular opinion in political and media circles, Ó Broin pointed out that the mixed-tenure model may lead to more segregation rather than integration, citing independent research as evidence.
Mixed tenure refers to when homeowners and private renters with relatively higher income levels are combined within development areas with social renters who usually have lower income. Ó Broin proposed to the committee that mixed-income housing developments could be encouraged by means of tenant purchase and intergenerational security of tenure.
He was voicing approval for an amendment by Richard Boyd Barret, an MP for People Before Profit, to the Planning and Development Bill 2023. The current bill outlines a legal obligation to provide a minimum of a 20% ratio of social and affordable housing in every development. However, the bill also offers a proviso that a smaller percentage might be required to avoid exaggerated segregation among people of diverse social backgrounds.
“Undue segregation” is often fraught with prejudice and tend to reflect an unavoidable issue with large council estates, Richard Boyd Barret cautioned the committee. He suggested increasing the social welfare income threshold as a solution for undue segregation worries of the government. Furthermore, the section in question should be expunged, and the housing development strategy should not explore options to go below the minimum of 20% social and affordable housing, he concluded.
Mr Ó Broin pointed to Ballymun in northern Dublin as an instance where the limitations on creating additional social housing in areas supposedly saturated with lower-income families, prohibit intergenerational continuity of housing rights and inhibit the expansion of diverse income families via tenant acquisition plans. He indicated that such restrictions mean those born in Ballymun may not have the opportunity to reside there.
“Lower-income households are the sole group in our society subjected to saturation restrictions. This doesn’t resonate with the approach to private housing.
“There’s a common misconception that a large number of people hold, which is not fact or reality-driven. It’s driven by anecdotal thoughts and often by bias – the notion that low-income families should not be dense and should be spread and dispersed as if that’s more socially approved.”
Kieran O’Donnell, Minister of State for Local Government and Planning for Fine Gael, supported the Bill’s phraseology, indicating it provided “adaptability”. The clause encompasses not only housing but also social development, he claimed.
“When I step foot into a community, it should give no signs of whether it’s public or private. We need to introduce a measure of adaptability… this requires equilibrium and practicality.
“Our ultimate objective is to construct many more social houses in a manner that functions”, stated Mr O’Donnell. “This is something I’ve observed over a significant period in Limerick. The inability to differentiate between social and private housing is my fundamental belief. I appreciate your standpoint, however, I am not inclined to accept the modification.”