Fixing the housing crisis without massively increasing tax or borrowing

BoatMad

Secondly, there is the issue of giving away expensive stuff. You need to bear in mind that intervention in the market through “perfectionist” planning and building regulation processes has been a major factor in the unaffordably high cost of housing. This is compounded by government and local authority inertia when things go wrong to the extent that ordinary folk on ordinary incomes can no longer afford a home.

Given , we have some of the poorest standards of house construction in Europe and a terrible planning system I see no evidence of " perfectionist " planning or excessive regulation at all , quite the opposite , developers wish to simply increase profitability by allowing them to build rubbish again.

macraignil

BoatMad wrote: »

Given , we have some of the poorest standards of house construction in Europe and a terrible planning system I see no evidence of " perfectionist " planning or excessive regulation at all , quite the opposite , developers wish to simply increase profitability by allowing them to build rubbish again.

The regulations for building in Ireland do not have the poorest standards of house construction in Europe.

The planning system is terrible in being too restrictive to people trying to build their own home with most of rural Ireland only allowing somebody from an area and working in the same area build a new home. As jobs in rural Ireland are paying less than can cover construction costs we are applying regulations that are preventing anything like a free market for housing.

Godge

macraignil wrote: »

The regulations for building in Ireland do not have the poorest standards of house construction in Europe.

The planning system is terrible in being too restrictive to people trying to build their own home with most of rural Ireland only allowing somebody from an area and working in the same area build a new home. As jobs in rural Ireland are paying less than can cover construction costs we are applying regulations that are preventing anything like a free market for housing.

We should be even more restrictive in where people can build in order to promote greater urbanisation. On the other hand, we need to be less restrictive in terms of the building regulations themselves.

thierry14

31000 houses for sale

Over 2000 in Dublin city alone

Problem is people would prefer have them on sale for years instead of renting them and why would they rent when 50% is taken by the taxman

Small town in county Limerick has 180 houses for sale and 2 for rent, it's madness

Government need to cut the tax on landlords dramatically

Eg no tax paid on houses below 1000pm, 20% on above 1000 below 1500 and higher rate of 40% on houses above 1500

Something like that would be fair

Villa05

thierry14 wrote:

Something like that would be fair

Something fair would be a flat tax on all rent including these so called vulture funds who by reports are using creative accounting to avoid paying any tax.

Bass Reeves

Godge wrote: »

We should be even more restrictive in where people can build in order to promote greater urbanisation. On the other hand, we need to be less restrictive in terms of the building regulations themselves.

Why do we need to promote urbanisation?. In Ireland Urbanisation equals housing in big cities and large towns. Dublin has become a sprawling monster we have failed to develop smaller urban area's and planning around these. We need counter balances to Dublin that will encourage jobs outside this area.

BoatMad

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Why do we need to promote urbanisation?. In Ireland Urbanisation equals housing in big cities and large towns. Dublin has become a sprawling monster we have failed to develop smaller urban area's and planning around these. We need counter balances to Dublin that will encourage jobs outside this area.

yes but those counter balances need to be other urban areas outside Dublin, not sprawling rural one-offs

BoatMad

macraignil wrote: »

The regulations for building in Ireland do not have the poorest standards of house construction in Europe.

compared to Germany and france , some of them are very substandard

The planning system is terrible in being too restrictive to people trying to build their own home with most of rural Ireland only allowing somebody from an area and working in the same area build a new home. As jobs in rural Ireland are paying less than can cover construction costs we are applying regulations that are preventing anything like a free market for housing.

while I personal experience of what you say, why should a person living in an urban areas be allowed to move into ANY rural area ( as opposed to say a depopulated urban area)

The main use of the planning amendments acts, were in places like Wicklow, where without it , half of middle class dublin would be quite happy to build one-offs, and still be within 30 minutes of Dundrum town centre
Thats not sustainable

Godge

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Why do we need to promote urbanisation?. In Ireland Urbanisation equals housing in big cities and large towns. Dublin has become a sprawling monster we have failed to develop smaller urban area's and planning around these. We need counter balances to Dublin that will encourage jobs outside this area.

As John Moran points out, we need to curb one-off housing and distributed rural building and concentrate on building up one or two (Cork and Limerick?) counterweights to Dublin.

People like to paint this as Dublin vs rural. In reality, the debate is different. It should be about how to make Dublin a better city to live in and how to build one or two strong cities in the rest of the country.

We shouldn't be spending money on rural broadband and services to every hill and vale.

K-9

Then we are just an economy and not a country, but I agree there is too much one off housing.

The proposal to CPO vacant housing was an interesting one, doubt it will happen but it's creative and alternative thinking that we need.

Godge

K-9 wrote: »

Then we are just an economy and not a country, but I agree there is too much one off housing.

The proposal to CPO vacant housing was an interesting one, doubt it will happen but it's creative and alternative thinking that we need.

It is happening everywhere else in the world and we are being left behind.

K-9

Really are we that far out from International norms? The Greater Dublin area has a big chunk of the population, add some other Leinster counties and we are on around 50% of the population within proximity to our Capital.

I'd say another million are close to other cities and major towns at a minimum.

macraignil

Godge wrote: »

As John Moran points out, we need to curb one-off housing and distributed rural building and concentrate on building up one or two (Cork and Limerick?) counterweights to Dublin.

People like to paint this as Dublin vs rural. In reality, the debate is different. It should be about how to make Dublin a better city to live in and how to build one or two strong cities in the rest of the country.

We shouldn't be spending money on rural broadband and services to every hill and vale.

Why has John Moran a particular authority on how Ireland should develop as a place to live.

I agree it is crazy to invest huge amounts of money in rural broadband schemes. I live in a rural area and accept this might mean internet services are not as good as more urban areas.

To concentrate all government spending on a small number of urban areas and neglect rural infrastructure would be a very short sighted decision with great potential for rural Ireland to play a positive part in the irish economy. I would much prefer to see the pot-holes in the roads filled before appealing for money for high speed internet.

I am not saying every person in Ireland should go and build a one off house in the countryside but the regulations preventing anyone doing so do contribute to less competition in the housing market. If planned properly and funded by the person wanting to live in a rural area themselves why is rural residential development such a bad thing?

Villa05

macraignil wrote:

To concentrate all government spending on a small number of urban areas and neglect rural infrastructure would be a very short sighted decision with great potential for rural Ireland to play a positive part in the irish economy. I would much prefer to see the pot-holes in the roads filled before appealing for money for high speed internet.

UL and Lit are currently receiving significant private investment. Money invested in a particular location to develop infrastructure for large population growth will break even or deliver a return on investment.

Bass Reeves

There are lots of myths being perpetrated here. First on broadband the main reason we had poor broadband coverage was that the government sold the only telecoms company in the country with a national network. It then spend the next 10 year duplicating this company's fibre network. Comreg was under the illusion that it could create artifical competition in telecoms and everyone was under the illusion that 4G would cover the whole country. The government offered a national broadband contract 2 if not three times to company's that failed to fulfill this contract with no penelty's in place for failure.

Then just as the only company capable of providing the service started to roll out the service. The government tried too give a rural broadband contract out only to be stopped by the EU as a commercial company was willing to provide same. It has now emerged that only about 30K homes will not receive broadband from commercial providers. And this may be less if the government force the ESB ( a state company) to open it network to other providers. The cost of providing broadband was never an issue it was rather the initial outlay cost and the Eircom pushed most of its expenditure where other providers were targeting.

John Moran is speaking through his rear end. Yes we need counter weights to Dublin. We have need them for the last 20 years and failed to provide it. Over the last 20 years we have spend a fortune on roads yet the road between the 2nd city Cork and the 3rd city Limerick is a national disgrace and there is no plan to upgrade it in the next 10 years.

We have a creaking water system yet again 70% of the elected politician took the easy route and played popular politics with it that is attractive to Urban dwellers and mainly people living in Dublin who have a good water supply at present and care little about the smaller urban area's. It is not a CPO on unoccupied houses we need but rather a property tax on underutilised/derelict sites in urban area's.

At present yes we have what seems to be a high percentage of one off houses however this is relative to a building sector that is not building houses at present. This also is relative to the failure over the last 50 years for developers to provide houses and build them to the standard that consumers want rather than build the type of houses and apartments which left them the most profit regardless of if people wanted them. This idea of starter homes etc is really only a building sector building what it see as the houses that are cheap and fast to build.

On top of this we have failed to get the balance right between tenant and landlord and have a tax system in place to punish the investor as much as possible and there is a perception that REITS are the answer. I somehow that we will be back with the same issue's in 10 and again in 20 and 30 years time.

Suryavarman

I haven't read through the whole thread so I'm not sure if I'm repeating what others have said. Below are some suggestions on what could be done to solve the housing crisis. Ultimately the problem is down to a lack of supply so the suggestions are intended to boost supply.

As has been mentioned by others the planning system is a mess. As far as I'm concerned the planning and zoning system should just be torn up and thrown in the bin. The whole system just seems to be a way to facilitate regulatory capture and corruption. It's hard to see how adding 90 days and €101,057 to the construction process benefits wider society. There should still be co-operation between developers and the Government so that schools, Garda stations and other amenities can be built in growing population centres. Local authorities definitely shouldn't be introducing regulations to reduce the maximum height of buildings.

Instead of the plethora of building regulations we have in place, of which enforcement is highly questionable, we might be better off replacing them with mandatory building reports on new premises. Instead of hoping builders comply with regulations, independent/Government structural engineers inspect new buildings and draw up a report on structural integrity, energy efficiency etc. This report is then made freely available to potential homeowners and they can decide whether the building is up to scratch. Perhaps the building could be given scores out of 10 in various categories to make the info easier to understand. A quick browse through Google seems to price such a report below €1,000. I don't know to what extent this is a feasible replacement for our current system but it is worth consideration. Whether it gives sufficient detail or not I don't know. If this results in a fall in building standards I don't see much of an issue. I live in a house built 40 years ago and there's nothing particularly wrong with it. If I was homeless then I definitely wouldn't turn my nose up at it.

I don't think there would be much harm in increasing property tax either. This might encourage people to rent out unused rooms in their homes. Alternatively a bedroom tax could be introduced as has been done in the UK.

For high rise buildings there could be property tax breaks. Maybe only the first five floors count towards property valuations for tax purposes or something along those lines.

A site valuation tax could be introduced for empty sites. This would encourage the development of idle sites in cities as well as raising revenue that could be used for social housing.

VAT on properties could be reduced. Tax on rental income could also be reduced.

Urbanisation in population centres other than Dublin could be encouraged by incentivising companies to set up in other cities. This might indirectly reduce demand for housing in Dublin by giving people a viable alternative to living in Dublin.

NAMA properties could be renovated and turned into emergency/short term accommodation. This could provide a short term solution to the homeless while we wait for supply to increase.

macraignil

Villa05 wrote: »

UL and Lit are currently receiving significant private investment. Money invested in a particular location to develop infrastructure for large population growth will break even or deliver a return on investment.

I have no objection to money being invested in developing infrastructure for population growth. I do object to rural planning regulations in much of the country preventing independent housing provision when the homeless situation and price of rented accommodation are such serious problems.

4ensic15

macraignil wrote: »

I have no objection to money being invested in developing infrastructure for population growth. I do object to rural planning regulations in much of the country preventing independent housing provision when the homeless situation and price of rented accommodation are such serious problems.

Allowing one off houses in rural locations does nothing for the housing problem. there are plenty of unused houses in all rural areas. One off housing causes far more problems than it solves.

BoatMad

4ensic15 wrote: »

Allowing one off houses in rural locations does nothing for the housing problem. there are plenty of unused houses in all rural areas. One off housing causes far more problems than it solves.

I wouldn't say rural one offs " cause " many problems. But yes they are not in any way a solution to Ireland's housing issues.

Rural housing also needs to be subject to more visual suitability rules as well

macraignil

4ensic15 wrote: »

Allowing one off houses in rural locations does nothing for the housing problem. there are plenty of unused houses in all rural areas. One off housing causes far more problems than it solves.

Building a one off house in the countryside makes one household have a place to live. I do not understand your statement that it does nothing for the housing problem.

Any unused houses I have seen in rural areas have been in derelict condition and could cost more to bring to modern standards than a new built home.

What are the problems with one off housing you are referring to?

4ensic15

macraignil wrote: »

Building a one off house in the countryside makes one household have a place to live. I do not understand your statement that it does nothing for the housing problem.

Any unused houses I have seen in rural areas have been in derelict condition and could cost more to bring to modern standards than a new built home.

What are the problems with one off housing you are referring to?

Unsightly, car dependency, expense in providing services such as electricity, ambulance, refuse, water sewage etc

macraignil

4ensic15 wrote: »

Unsightly, car dependency, expense in providing services such as electricity, ambulance, refuse, water sewage etc

Unsightly: Trees, hedges, etc. will make many potential house sites out of view of however might be judging them as unsightly. Houses do not have to be ugly and with existing planning laws, appearances of one off houses are very restricted into fitting in with rural housing traditions. For example it is not permitted for one off homes to have a bay window in many parts of the country.

Car dependency: Not funded by the state and so if anything more car use would have a positive impact on levels of tax generated for road maintenance etc. New electric car ranges mean rural living and commute to an urban centre is possible without fossil fueled transport. Public transport is still very patchy outside Dublin so car dependency is already a feature of much of Ireland's existing suburban housing development.

Services such as electricity: There already is a national grid and few new homes in rural Ireland would need to be any great distance from an existing power line to connect to. There are also improvements in off grid power sources such as solar and wind and providing electricity also is not funded by the state but paid for by the person wanting to live somewhere rural.

Ambulance: ??? I do not think a one off rural home will make that much impact on the country's ambulance service provision.

Refuse: There are already existing rural refuse collectors that could see improved cost effectiveness in their collection routes if there were more customers to stop at.

Water: The householder pays to have a well drilled and pump installed currently so there is no cost to the state.

Sewage: Modern bio-cycle units are the obligatory replacements to the traditional septic tank and they provide safe hygienic disposal of sewage at a cost to the homeowner and not to the state.

BoatMad

macraignil wrote: »

Unsightly: Trees, hedges, etc. will make many potential house sites out of view of however might be judging them as unsightly. Houses do not have to be ugly and with existing planning laws, appearances of one off houses are very restricted into fitting in with rural housing traditions. For example it is not permitted for one off homes to have a bay window in many parts of the country.

Car dependency: Not funded by the state and so if anything more car use would have a positive impact on levels of tax generated for road maintenance etc. New electric car ranges mean rural living and commute to an urban centre is possible without fossil fueled transport. Public transport is still very patchy outside Dublin so car dependency is already a feature of much of Ireland's existing suburban housing development.

Services such as electricity: There already is a national grid and few new homes in rural Ireland would need to be any great distance from an existing power line to connect to. There are also improvements in off grid power sources such as solar and wind and providing electricity also is not funded by the state but paid for by the person wanting to live somewhere rural.

Ambulance: ??? I do not think a one off rural home will make that much impact on the country's ambulance service provision.

Refuse: There are already existing rural refuse collectors that could see improved cost effectiveness in their collection routes if there were more customers to stop at.

Water: The householder pays to have a well drilled and pump installed currently so there is no cost to the state.

Sewage: Modern bio-cycle units are the obligatory replacements to the traditional septic tank and they provide safe hygienic disposal of sewage at a cost to the homeowner and not to the state.

all good points , but the fact is that the roads network in the rural areas are heavily state funded and the use of cars to reach urban works areas , means greater car landings in the cities as a consequence of certain rural settlement practice.

in addition the state must maintain and extend a large scale rural electricity grid that in itself is not self sustaining, costs wise Th same is true for broadband and the services

IN addition the state has to maintain local services like rural buses and post offices that might otherwise be gainfully used more efficiently elsewhere.


The reason Ireland has a high percentage of rural one off houses is a function of space, we have lots of it here as we are considerable underpopulated in comparison to continental Europe. However the availability of space for housing and the decision to utilise that space are not the same thing

macraignil

BoatMad wrote: »

all good points , but the fact is that the roads network in the rural areas are heavily state funded and the use of cars to reach urban works areas , means greater car landings in the cities as a consequence of certain rural settlement practice.

in addition the state must maintain and extend a large scale rural electricity grid that in itself is not self sustaining, costs wise Th same is true for broadband and the services

IN addition the state has to maintain local services like rural buses and post offices that might otherwise be gainfully used more efficiently elsewhere.


The reason Ireland has a high percentage of rural one off houses is a function of space, we have lots of it here as we are considerable underpopulated in comparison to continental Europe. However the availability of space for housing and the decision to utilise that space are not the same thing

Road networks in all of the country are state funded. People pay road tax and excise duty on fuel and so contribute to this funding. People living in rural areas generally travel further buying more fuel and so contributing more to this funding. Because of the potholes near my house I have a bit more wear and tear on my van so I have to change light bulbs and eventually my transport more frequently and so contribute more to the VAT(value added tax) on vehicle maintenance. I also pay for urban parking so that also contributes to state revenue.

The rural electrification scheme in Ireland took place early in the last century. The ESB(Electricity Supply Board) was established to maintain this service and they charge the householder to connect to the grid. There is also the cost to the householder of burying the cables from the power lines to the house. This is not a cost to the state just like the internet connection I am using is through a private company that has an internet transmitter service.

Maintenance of rural buses and post offices would be more efficient if rural re-population was possible in this country. If a friendlier approach was taken to people applying to build a home in the countryside, state support for such services would not be required as it is the falling density of population in rural areas that has created a problem with these services.

The decision by government here seems to me to be to ignore the possibility of utilising rural areas for housing. The regulations applied to rural housing are restricting the housing market and contributing to Ireland having some of the highest housing provision costs in the world. I live about 30minutes drive from Apple computers which has questioned its expansion plans because of the lack of supply of housing in Cork. My girlfriend needed to get a letter from the vet to be allowed build on her family farm as well as paying county council development charges and the costs of complying with far too many regulations. Having given Cork county council thousands in development charges they don't even bother fixing the potholes on the roads. The reason to me seems to be that it is government policy that everyone must live in an increasingly confined space in the name of efficiency.

HiJacques

I heard someone complain about forestry because it took up a lot of space and only employed one person which made me laugh but also worried me that the opinion was out there.

Just because living in one-off housing in the countryside is a tradition it doesn't mean you should. Larger areas of Ireland should be forested, uncultivated and uninhabited.

Instead of complaining about depopulation of villages just move people who don't work in the countryside to towns where all the services they complain about not having can be provided affordably and they can be a reservoir of labour when needed in a larger area.

oscarBravo

HiJacques wrote: »

Larger areas of Ireland should be forested, uncultivated and uninhabited.

Why? Should that be true of every country, or just Ireland? Should rural Denmark be one large forest? Rural Belgium?

...just move people who don't work in the countryside to towns...

Like a forced march sort of deal?

4ensic15

oscarBravo wrote: »

Why? Should that be true of every country, or just Ireland? Should rural Denmark be one large forest? Rural Belgium? Like a forced march sort of deal?

Ireland has a lower rate of forestry coverage than most other countries, thanks to the English.

There is no need for a forced march. Just no more planning permissions for one off houses and no pandering to hamlets demanding garda stations, schools and post offices.

Bass Reeves

4ensic15 wrote: »

Ireland has a lower rate of forestry coverage than most other countries, thanks to the English.

There is no need for a forced march. Just no more planning permissions for one off houses and no pandering to hamlets demanding garda stations, schools and post offices.

That right....... we will stick everyone in Ballymun's they have been shown to be the ideal solutions:rolleyes:

Suryavarman

4ensic15 wrote: »

Ireland has a lower rate of forestry coverage than most other countries, thanks to the English.

There is no need for a forced march. Just no more planning permissions for one off houses and no pandering to hamlets demanding garda stations, schools and post offices.

Strict planning regulations have caused the housing crisis. Making them more strict isn't going to solve the problem.

4ensic15

Suryavarman wrote: »

Strict planning regulations have caused the housing crisis. Making them more strict isn't going to solve the problem.

Strict planning regulations have not caused or contributed to the housing crisis. Lax planning has contributed more to housing problems. Hoses have not been built in sufficient numbers for years. The non building had nothing to do with planning laws.

Bass Reeves

4ensic15 wrote: »

Strict planning regulations have not caused or contributed to the housing crisis. Lax planning has contributed more to housing problems. Hoses have not been built in sufficient numbers for years. The non building had nothing to do with planning laws.

It is not so much planning as over regulation and the costs associated with this that is adding huge cost to building. But levies associated with planning are also an issue.

Suryavarman

4ensic15 wrote: »

Strict planning regulations have not caused or contributed to the housing crisis. Lax planning has contributed more to housing problems. Hoses have not been built in sufficient numbers for years. The non building had nothing to do with planning laws.

Yes they have. According to the ESRI:

This examination of the existing international and domestic housing policies highlights a myriad of governmental approaches used to tackle the issue of housing supply and potential lack thereof. It is true that in some circumstances the lag in new residential construction is linked to non-policy constraints such as geographical conditions. However, in many circumstances, as the literature identifies, government policy plays a strong role in housing supply responsiveness.

This paper highlights some of the main aspects of government policy that act to influence housing supply. In particular, three policies emerge that appear to play an important role in acting as a constraint on housing supply. International evidence shows that strict planning regulations can have a greater impact on housing development than infrastructural costs. Andrews et al. (2011), for example, identify lower supply elasticities in countries with strict land-use and planning regulations. This is considered to be especially the case in countries where it takes a relatively long period of time to acquire a building permit.

According to the World Bank our planning system adds on over €100,000 to construction costs. Whereas it only costs about €7,500 to get a building permit in Germany.

As a matter of interest what do you think is causing the housing crisis?

4ensic15

Bass Reeves wrote: »

That right....... we will stick everyone in Ballymun's they have been shown to be the ideal solutions:rolleyes:

Ballymun is a very pleasant place, no high rise and a mix of social and middle class.

Bass Reeves

4ensic15 wrote: »

Ballymun is a very pleasant place, no high rise and a mix of social and middle class.

Now it is not 20 years ago. Orginally it was build and people were dumped in there like was proposed in the orginal post.

4ensic15

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Now it is not 20 years ago. Orginally it was build and people were dumped in there like was proposed in the orginal post.

He is talking about putting them there now. The housing crisis is being caused by an absence of building for a number of years, chasing private landlords out of business and porr government planning in introducing short term solutions.

Suryavarman

Colm McCarthy wrote a piece on the new housing plan in the Sindo today. Some choice quotes below:

The excess price of modest homes in the outer suburbs and the surge in rental costs across the city are what matters. Reducing those prices back towards construction costs requires a steady increase in the availability of residential zoning on the city's outskirts and the allocation of all available land in the central areas to apartment construction.

The plan contains some measures which will make matters worse. The planned reintroduction of the first-time buyer grant in October's budget, even if confined to purchases of new homes, will tend to stimulate demand and circumvent the Central Bank's lending restraints.

The largest elephant in the room remains the exorbitant, and policy-induced, price of building land in Dublin and a few of the other urban centres.

This problem will not be resolved until the planning and zoning restrictions which have contributed so much to the current crisis are addressed.

keane2097

From my reading of the plan a major plank of it is to use the large amounts of publicly held land as sites.

macraignil

keane2097 wrote: »

From my reading of the plan a major plank of it is to use the large amounts of publicly held land as sites.

Not sure of the detail of the plan as I have not read it, but even talk like this could end up being counterproductive if builders decide not to buy suitable sites for housing development because they expect the government to start to give land away for free.

I heard the minister on the radio when the recent FG plan was released. He was talking about getting builders to build infrastructure like schools in return for getting some of this publicly held land. It would be good if the detail of all this is explained well and is ready to be implemented quickly.

The publicly held land near my parent's house has poor drainage and a good covering of trees and already is a public amenity in being used for walking and sports pitches. Will this plank of the scheme simply see public amenities being removed and unsuitable land being used for housing and builders holding off on developing new residential sites because they might be able to get a better profit from some FG public land give away?

macraignil

Has anyone heard of any investment being made in reducing building costs in Ireland?

There was talk a while back of money being made available for infrastructure required for new developments. Is this being implemented? I have not seen much in the news about it recently.

Godge

macraignil wrote: »

Has anyone heard of any investment being made in reducing building costs in Ireland?

There was talk a while back of money being made available for infrastructure required for new developments. Is this being implemented? I have not seen much in the news about it recently.

Building standards are one of the biggest impediments to reducing costs. Builders are now building student accommodation in central Dublin because standards are lower for them. Expect a raft of change of use applications in the future.

macraignil

Just heard on the radio this morning that the EU is to reopen a legal case against the Irish government for the "locals only" rule introduced for rural planning in Ireland in 2005. The rule has meant that people have to come from a particular rural area in order to be allowed build a home there and I have heard of some ridiculous cases of people who were only a relatively short distance from where they were reared being refused planning permission under the regulation.

It has been quite rightly pointed out that this rule is contrary to the EU policy on the free movement of people. The fact that FG has done nothing to remove this regulation since taking over from FF just proves both parties have no interest in helping housing become affordable. If there was a shred of decency in the Irish government they would remove this discriminatory regulation (that forces people into living in the overpriced urban centres) now, before they are forced to do so by the EU.

macraignil

Godge wrote: »

Building standards are one of the biggest impediments to reducing costs. Builders are now building student accommodation in central Dublin because standards are lower for them. Expect a raft of change of use applications in the future.

They could be applying for change of use for these to homeless shelters fairly soon the way things have gone recently.

BoatMad

macraignil wrote: »

Just heard on the radio this morning that the EU is to reopen a legal case against the Irish government for the "locals only" rule introduced for rural planning in Ireland in 2005. The rule has meant that people have to come from a particular rural area in order to be allowed build a home there and I have heard of some ridiculous cases of people who were only a relatively short distance from where they were reared being refused planning permission under the regulation.

It has been quite rightly pointed out that this rule is contrary to the EU policy on the free movement of people. The fact that FG has done nothing to remove this regulation since taking over from FF just proves both parties have no interest in helping housing become affordable. If there was a shred of decency in the Irish government they would remove this discriminatory regulation (that forces people into living in the overpriced urban centres) now, before they are forced to do so by the EU.

its about time, I never understood why a constitutional challenge was never mounted here agains that law

BoatMad

Godge wrote: »

Building standards are one of the biggest impediments to reducing costs. Builders are now building student accommodation in central Dublin because standards are lower for them. Expect a raft of change of use applications in the future.

nothing to be gained by going back, to poorly constructed housing , lack of insulation etc

jimmycrackcorm

BoatMad wrote:

nothing to be gained by going back, to poorly constructed housing , lack of insulation etc

No need to go back that far but some of the rules were introduced with an ideal viewpoint instead of a practical one.

BoatMad

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

No need to go back that far but some of the rules were introduced with an ideal viewpoint instead of a practical one.

what specifically

macraignil

BoatMad wrote: »

what specifically

The non practical regulations applied to rural housing that I can think of include the control of aesthetic features of the house design intended to make new homes maintain the appearance of the older homes built in rural Ireland. I worked with a builder who was refused permission on the home he intended to build for himself because it had "hips" on the roof design. ie. Instead of having slates sloping down two sides he wanted to have them partly sloping down on the other two sides as well which would give a more cottage like appearance in my opinion but the planning department in his area had decided this was not in keeping with the housing tradition in that area.

I have also read that some planning departments insist on small windows thus perpetuating the tradition of small windows in Irish homes that developed when the english were taxing people here for their window size. In county Cork we still have a ban on "bay" windows in the rural house control regulations thus restricting the option of having a more natural light filled room in the house.

Another example is the ecology protection regulations which in an ideal world sound like a good idea but in practical terms are just adding to the expense of building. The case I am most familiar with was to be built on a standard agricultural grazing field but because it was within a few hundred meters of a stream, flowing into a protected area an ecology report needed to be submitted. This added to the building cost and the report did not even require a visit to the site. The only ecological disturbance in the construction was to grass that had been planted by the farmer some weeds like doc leaves and nettles and livestock of the farmer that were moved to another field. The garden planting of trees, flowers and shrubs since construction has actually added to the ecological diversity of the site and the garage roof has even provided a nesting site for swallows in the summer.

I could go on but don't really expect anything to change as it seems to be government policy not to allow people to live in rural areas in spite of the benefits it could bring to the country.

BoatMad

The non practical regulations applied to rural housing that I can think of include the control of aesthetic features of the house design intended to make new homes maintain the appearance of the older homes built in rural Ireland. I worked with a builder who was refused permission on the home he intended to build for himself because it had "hips" on the roof design. ie. Instead of having slates sloping down two sides he wanted to have them partly sloping down on the other two sides as well which would give a more cottage like appearance in my opinion but the planning department in his area had decided this was not in keeping with the housing tradition in that area.

but this is aesthetics, its has no bearing on the speed or costs in general and is more a reflection on the architects poor design

I have also read that some planning departments insist on small windows thus perpetuating the tradition of small windows in Irish homes that developed when the english were taxing people here for their window size. In county Cork we still have a ban on "bay" windows in the rural house control regulations thus restricting the option of having a more natural light filled room in the house.

again aesthetics, bay windows are a curse anyway ,

Another example is the ecology protection regulations which in an ideal world sound like a good idea but in practical terms are just adding to the expense of building. The case I am most familiar with was to be built on a standard agricultural grazing field but because it was within a few hundred meters of a stream, flowing into a protected area an ecology report needed to be submitted

sewage polluting water courses has been a curse in rural ireland, We actually need more rules not less

I could go on but don't really expect anything to change as it seems to be government policy not to allow people to live in rural areas in spite of the benefits it could bring to the country.

we have way too much one-off housing in this country, making us entirely car dependant, and then the issue if getting services to these remote one offs

we need far LESS rural housing and more sustainable development in villages and communities that can share resources

Your arguments are purely self serving and have NO bearing on the current housing crisis , which is largely Dublin centric anyway

macraignil

BoatMad wrote: »

but this is aesthetics, its has no bearing on the speed or costs in general and is more a reflection on the architects poor design


The more times a planning application needs to be adjusted and a building redesigned the more it costs and the longer it takes.

again aesthetics, bay windows are a curse anyway ,

I do not understand why you think having a brightly lit room with a bay window is a curse. Can you explain please?

sewage polluting water courses has been a curse in rural ireland, We actually need more rules not less

The biocycle units that have replaced the traditional septic tanks do not produce free flowing sewage that could enter water courses. You mention a problem that is not caused by a house in the countryside built to the current standards. My point was about the regulations requiring an ecology report on the site that requires no knowledge of the site and just the regulations that apply and simply ads to the cost.

we have way too much one-off housing in this country, making us entirely car dependant, and then the issue if getting services to these remote one offs

I don't agree. When properly built there are more positives than negatives to one off housing. Even in suburban development many people still require a car. With increased range of electric cars there is no need to use fossil fuels and a mobile working population can travel to earn more if the EU freedom of movement policy was respected. Weather they live in a remote housing estate or a one off house will not have a major impact on the requirement for a car.
There is no additional cost to the state for services to most new rural homes. The electricity supply grid already covers most of the country and the connection is paid for by the owner of the new home. Water is often provided by the drilling of an onsite well which again is paid for by the owner of the new home and there is no shortage of ground water in Ireland. Waste collection, post and school bus provision are already covering most of the country and it is rural depopulation that has made these services more difficult to maintain.

we need far LESS rural housing and more sustainable development in villages and communities that can share resources

The local village to where I live has no services besides a primary school as rural depopulation has made them unsustainable and the shop and pub that were there have had to close. I do not agree that we need less rural housing and by regulating against it we are pushing up demand for (and price of) housing in urban areas. People in the countryside do share resources just over a wider distance. We are not a big country and everyone does not have to live on top of each other for resources to be shared.

Your arguments are purely self serving and have NO bearing on the current housing crisis , which is largely Dublin centric anyway

I do not understand how you think my argument is self serving. I already have the benefit of living in the countryside and think others should have this opportunity also. My relatives in Dublin have moved out from the centre of the city due to the rising cost of housing there and because improved transport infrastructure still allows them to get to work without living in the city centre. I think intelligent rural development offers an opportunity to address the housing problems in Dublin.

James Brown

Are we on the way to another bubble?

Minister for Housing Eoghan Murphy has said the forthcoming budget will include additional resources for social housing, as well as affordability measures for buyers and renters.


The social housing budget has fallen from €1.54 billion in 2008 to €680 million this year.

Latest figures show that there are now over 8,000 people living in emergency accommodation.

The Simon Community says increasing supply in the private sector will not bring down prices in the short term.

Elsewhere, the chief economist with Goodbody, Dermot O'Leary, has said he believes the official numbers of new house builds are being significantly overstated.

Meanwhile, a report for MyHome.ie by Davy's chief economist, Conall MacCoille, has said that the acceleration in asking prices for houses which began in late 2016 has continued through 2017 and is likely to continue during 2018.
https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/1002/909020-housing-crisis/

New measures look to be more of the same.
It seems the economy is on the right track, so maybe housing could be the next task to tackle or are we still an economy too dependent on the construction industry to provide social housing?