Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

seamus

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1019/825318-airbnb-temple-bar/

TL;DR:

- Dublin City Council held the owners of an apartment in breach of planning regulations for using AirBnB for letting out their apartment
- Owners appealed to ABP
- ABP upheld the DCC ruling
- Owners must now apply for change-of-use permission from residential to short-term holiday letting

It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

Michael D Not Higgins

Excellent news, I'm just wondering how are they going to enforce it on the large scale.

bittihuduga

yes - heard that on the radio news

Sharktopus

Excellent news. Let's hope that the powers that be now see fit to introduce legislation similar to Berlin to win back some properties for residential use. Airbnb is the elephant in the room for Dublin's rental market- it's crazy that a significant portion of the stock is being siphoned off for commercial use while we are scrambling to build additional units

maximum12

This also benefits other owners or lessees in developments who didn't sign up to live in a guest house.

Gumbo

Renember,Planning Enforcement will only get involved in foot of a valid complaint. So if this is happening, people need to report it if they feel fit to.

4ensic15

The City Council have no interest in enforcing this. Their spokesman was denying there was any planning issue when it was raised with them. Because there is no physical change, it must be established that their has been a change of user. Not easy to get evidence of this to support an application to the courts.

Gatling

4ensic15 wrote: »

The City Council have no interest in enforcing this. Their spokesman was denying there was any planning issue when it was raised with them. Because there is no physical change, it must be established that their has been a change of user. Not easy to get evidence of this to support an application to the courts.

Photos ,CCTV and likely witness statements all easy enough these days .
Add someone would obviously have to advertise the properties,quick search on the oul interwebs easy enough to find an actual listing

Baby01032012

Gatling wrote: »

Photos ,CCTV and likely witness statements all easy enough these days .
Add someone would obviously have to advertise the properties,quick search on the oul interwebs easy enough to find an actual listing

Unlikely CCTV in corridors, at hall door yes but they could be going to any apartment. Who's going to stand outside with a camera. Re: advertise - Airbnb adds do not give addresses, it shows point on a map, hard to disciper street never mind apartment/block.

newacc2015

Sharktopus wrote: »

Excellent news. Let's hope that the powers that be now see fit to introduce legislation similar to Berlin to win back some properties for residential use. Airbnb is the elephant in the room for Dublin's rental market- it's crazy that a significant portion of the stock is being siphoned off for commercial use while we are scrambling to build additional units

Someone did the stats on this in May and found out only around 1,500 whole houses/apartments were actually on it. 1,500 units in a city of well over a million people is not "significant". It is actually tiny. I imagine DCC banning bedsits is significantly higher than 1500 unit.

http://www.dublininquirer.com/2016/05/17/does-airbnb-mean-there-are-fewer-homes-to-rent-in-dublin/

Banning Airbnbs is a quick fix and a dangerous one at that. This is what most residents of Berlin will tell you too. Berlin like Dublin has a massive housing shortage. Not enough apartments are being built to meet demand for housing. The Berlin authorities know this and are ignoring it (sounds very similar to Dublin) and have decided to ban Airbnb to increase housing demand. It looks great on paper until you realise it isnt going to address the massive shortage now and in the future. What Berlin needs like Dublin is more housing to be built.

The Government is not "scrambling to build units". It is making hardly any effort to build any social housing. A fair amount of new apartments in the city are being purpose built for short-term lets as you dont have to worry about contributing to social housing. Airbnb wouldnt be so popular in Dublin if hotels werent such a rip off. But there is a massive shortage of hotel rooms, that isnt going to be dealt with anything soon.

Gatling

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Unlikely CCTV in corridors, at hall door yes but they could be going to any apartment. Who's going to stand outside with a camera. Re: advertise - Airbnb adds do not give addresses, it shows point on a map, hard to disciper street never mind apartment/block.

Yeah but a customer is supplied with a an address though,
CCTV can be installed anywhere for investigations especially if a concerned neighbour/s makes a complaint

dudara

Removing AirBnb will put visitors back into the hotel market which is already stretched in Dublin. Room rates will rise and possibly deter tourism and business.

For every up, there's a down.

Baby01032012

Gatling wrote: »

Yeah but a customer is supplied with a an address though,
CCTV can be installed anywhere for investigations especially if a concerned neighbour/s makes a complaint

Customer is...so DCC hire a PI to pretend to be a Airbnb guest to then get proof of address....I see..I'm sure they can't wait to implement this.

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

Photos ,CCTV and likely witness statements all easy enough these days .
Add someone would obviously have to advertise the properties,quick search on the oul interwebs easy enough to find an actual listing

That only gives a lead. That wouldn't be enough for a court. The owner would have to be served with a warning notice first. It would then have to be shown that the owner hadn't stopped. Potential guests would be given a different address and sent to a pick up point to get the keys. DCC have no intention of trying to book accommodation in Dublin and going into a unit to gather evidence.

hytrogen

dudara wrote:

Removing AirBnb will put visitors back into the hotel market which is already stretched in Dublin. Room rates will rise and possibly deter tourism and business.

Back to couchsurfing so

hytrogen

seamus wrote:

- Dublin City Council held the owners of an apartment in breach of planning regulations for using AirBnB for letting out their apartment - Owners appealed to ABP - ABP upheld the DCC ruling - Owners must now apply for change-of-use permission from residential to short-term holiday letting

seamus wrote:

It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

I think this all sets a very bad precedence legally, especially for home owners who take lodgers and use airbnb to advertise their availabilities.

**sweeping statements alert**
While I appreciate regulation for crooks who stuff tenants into apartments 10 to a room or throw a blind eye to allow leaseholders to sublet a room and carryout the same, (which in my view is what actually happens and landlords get the rot end of it in the media now! Check out rent rooms groups on facetube its all leaseholders subletting) airbnb, for many, is an alternative means to advertising that a person has a room to let out short term which can be very advantageous for international business visitors. I do agree that it definitely shouldn't be for long term leases but with this action we start the walk down that dark path noone wants to go..

Gatling

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Customer is...so DCC hire a PI to pretend to be a Airbnb guest to then get proof of address....I see..I'm sure they can't wait to implement this.

Only takes a simple phone call no need for PI's at all

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

Only takes a simple phone call no need for PI's at all

1. How is a phone call going to get the address?
What good is getting an address?
How does that mean DCC can stop it at that address?

seamus

hytrogen wrote: »

I think this all sets a very bad precedence legally, especially for home owners who take lodgers and use airbnb to advertise their availabilities.

It doesn't affect them though. It's pretty clear that this only applies where the property is being used for holiday (i.e. short-term, no-tenancy) rentals. And this is because such activity is a commercial activity.

People who occupy the property themselves for a majority of the year would be exempt from this provided that they have less then 5 bedrooms for guest use. As this is considered a residential use of the property.

It's becoming more and more of a problem in the city centre as landlords realise they can make a years' worth of rental income in six months using AirBnB and they don't even have to abide by any of the PRTB rules. Which puts additional pressure on the city's housing crisis.

hytrogen

seamus wrote:

People who occupy the property themselves for a majority of the year would be exempt from this provided that they have less then 5 bedrooms for guest use. As this is considered a residential use of the property.

Agreed, however there are the minority tenants who run a business out of subleasing rooms to quite an excessive and unsafe density, ie flavellas or slumlike conditions, in town that are clearly getting away with it which should be stopped for health and safety reasons.

seamus wrote:

It's becoming more and more of a problem in the city centre as landlords realise they can make a years' worth of rental income in six months using AirBnB and they don't even have to abide by any of the PRTB rules. Which puts additional pressure on the city's housing crisis.

Also agreed but why cut the hand that feeds the mouth? And they've been sought to, after another recent case, to pay tax appropriately on those earnings which, in turn, should mean greater revenue for the exchequer.

testaccount123

4ensic15 wrote: »

1. How is a phone call going to get the address?
What good is getting an address?
How does that mean DCC can stop it at that address?

What on earth are you talking about?

Graham

hytrogen wrote: »

but why cut the hand that feeds the mouth? And they've been sought to, after another recent case, to pay tax appropriately on those earnings which, in turn, should mean greater revenue for the exchequer.

1) other long-term residents didn't sign-up to live in a holiday village
2) it removes long-term housing stock from the market

hytrogen

Graham wrote:

1) other long-term residents didn't sign-up to live in a holiday village 2) it removes long-term housing stock from the market

1) Agreed. That's what the likes of Trabolgan are for and it shouldn't be abused by the likes private landlords or subletting tenants. Then again life should be a holiday
2) somewhat disagree in that it still provides an alternative service for short stay visitors while alleviating and competing with the hoteliers market. Again because someone's taken the risk to diverge their business they shouldn't be demonized for exploring those opportunities. It keeps the market flexible which, I hope you'll agree, it certainly needs.
Security of long term tenure is indeed vital for all tenants.
Long term housing stock is set to come from intensifying the density levels around the city as one component according to the new government overall housing plan.

Graham

hytrogen wrote: »

2) somewhat disagree in that it still provides an alternative service for short stay visitors

That wasn't it's purpose, it wasn't the basis on which planning was granted and to be honest I don't think we should prioritise tourists saving a few quid on weekend break accommodation over providing housing for the local population.

Investors are free to diversify into holiday accommodation via any number of alternative (legitimate) channels.

maximum12

Spencer Dock (600 units) have banned people subletting on Air BnB. Sounds like it was having significant impact on residents with the common areas being described as being like a hotel lobby and significant extra traffic with cleaners coming and going.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/blanket-airbnb-ban-placed-on-dublin-apartment-complex-1.2836859

Alkers

seamus wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1019/825318-airbnb-temple-bar/


It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

That last bit is apparently not correct:
The council’s Deputy Planning Officer said that yesterday’s decision by An Bord Pleanála does not set a precedent.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, Mary Conway said that each Section 5 application is site specific so "one ruling does not necessarily apply across the board".

From:http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1020/825490-dublin-airbnb/

Graham

Simona1986 wrote: »

That last bit is apparently not correct:
The council’s Deputy Planning Officer said that yesterday’s decision by An Bord Pleanála does not set a precedent.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, Mary Conway said that each Section 5 application is site specific so "one ruling does not necessarily apply across the board".

From:http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1020/825490-dublin-airbnb/

It would be hard to argue any similar case would result in a different conclusion though and as the Spencer Dock letters demonstrate, management companies are starting to take matters in hand without the intervention of the planning departments.

jd

maximum12 wrote: »

Spencer Dock (600 units) have banned people subletting on Air BnB. Sounds like it was having significant impact on residents with the common areas being described as being like a hotel lobby and significant extra traffic with cleaners coming and going.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/blanket-airbnb-ban-placed-on-dublin-apartment-complex-1.2836859

I think it is this case discussed here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057655411

beauf

seamus wrote: »

...
It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

Thus far almost every action to impose regulation or better standards has reduced the amount of rentals available to tenants.

I would expect the same with this. It's main effect imo will to protect adjoining residents. Which is needed.

Is there any meaningful govt action on the supply shortage??

daithi7

beauf wrote: »

Thus far almost every action to impose regulation or better standards has reduced the amount of rentals available to tenants.

I would expect the same with this. It's main effect imo will to protect adjoining residents. Which is needed.

Is there any meaningful govt action on the supply shortage??

Loads in fairness: I.e.
Direct social housing builds and rapid builds
Reintroducing the first time buyer's grant
Allowing the tax credit to be used as part of the deposit
Increasing the rent a room allowance
Etc, etc etc

beauf

This crisis has been going n on for years. They announced that only the other day.

Itv will be interesting to see if this ruling has any effect on AirB