Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

My fumbling around with the legalities aside, it does very much seem to be case by case, even if it is, in fact, a matter of enforcement.

Absolutely, enforcement is the issue.

The fact current planning regulation isn't being enforced is incorrectly understood to be planning compliant by some.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely, enforcement is the issue.

The fact current planning regulation isn't being enforced is incorrectly understood to be planning compliant by some.

I've not read the decision so I stand to be corrected but I don't see it that way. People are equating this decision with a binary state and then saying all DCC are doing is not enforcing. I see it (possibly in error but we'd need the case and a discussion of it) as AirBnB can be used in some form everywhere. DCC can then decide it's going to disallow it. That decision can then be appealed. It's difficult to see how an enforcement decision can be appealed - I was under the impression it was only allowed on a point of law?

The fact that a property in Temple Bar is affected doesn't affect something down the road in D8 DCC have to make a decision on a case by case basis. Hence the description of this as almost like a reverse process. Enforcement I would forward is a subtly different process and would mean that a decision like the one in Temple Bar would have general application, from what I can see it does not.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

The fact that a property in Temple Bar is affected doesn't affect something down the road in D8 DCC have to make a decision on a case by case basis. Hence the description of this as almost like a reverse process. Enforcement I would forward is a subtly different process and would mean that a decision like the one in Temple Bar would have general application, from what I can see it does not.

Minister for Housing appears to disagree according to a relatively recent reoprt in the Irish Times.

Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.
Mr Coveney said landlords should be treated differently to somebody who is allowing someone on holiday to stay in their home for two or three weeks through Airbnb.
He said the planning enforcement distinction made by An Bord Pleanála “is a good way of dealing with this [issue] without having to go through legislative changeâ€.

Samuel T. Cogley

Graham wrote: »

Minister for Housing appears to disagree according to a relatively recent reoprt in the Irish Times.

Could he have been more vague and equivocated any more? If it's as he suggests why does it need a legislative change?

<mod snip>

Graham

Graham wrote: »

Absolutely, enforcement is the issue.

The fact current planning regulation isn't being enforced is incorrectly understood to be planning compliant by some.

Its not so clear cut.

Airbnb is planning compliant for definite if the home owner is renting a room in his home even if he is renting a rooms all the time so you cannot have a blanket statement that "airbnb is in breach of planning" or "airbnb full time is in breach of planning"

Airbnb is definitely planning compliant if renting a full house on occasion (i.e. while you are on holiday yourself, out of the country for work which could be very regularly for some) so you cannot have a blanket statement that "renting a full house on airbnb is in breach of planning".

So you are left with a "house let full time on airbnb is in breach of planning" but who is to decide what full time is, what if there is lots of downtime (i.e. no takers for renting it), what if the person does use it themselves as a base in a city, place to stay during holidays etc etc but lets it the rest of the the time on airbnb. What if someone is using it for airbnb all the time but extended lets up to 6 months?

It's very difficult to make a statement about it being in breach of planning as you really can't know for sure unless its judged to be so by a planning authority.

Samuel T. Cogley

Odin Thousands Flapjack wrote: »

Its not so clear cut.

Airbnb is planning compliant for definite if the home owner is renting a room in his home even if he is renting a rooms all the time so you cannot have a blanket statement that "airbnb is in breach of planning" or "airbnb full time is in breach of planning"

Airbnb is definitely planing compliant if renting a full house on occasion so you cannot have a blanket statement that "renting a full house on airbnb is in breach of planning".

So you are left with a "house let full time on airbnb is in breach of planning" but who is to decide what full time is, what if there is lots of downtime (i.e. no takers for renting it), what if the person does use it themselves as a base in a city, place to stay during holidays etc etc but lets it the rest of the the time on airbnb. What if someone is using it for airbnb all the time but extended lets up to 6 months?

It's very difficult to make a statement about it being in breach of planning as you really can't know for sure unless its judged to be so by a planning authority.

To be fair Nox, I think you take a very literal view sometimes. If the LL is not resident and it's available 365, just no one takes it that's still full time.

I have to agree with you though that it's not as clear cut as Coveney is suggesting, but it bloody well should be, but is he going to piss off AirBnB - of course not. We'll just dance around it nudging and winking.

Graham

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

If it's as he suggests why does it need a legislative change?

I think he's right, it doesn't need a legislative change, it needs enforcement of the existing planning legislation.

__Alex__

I can see discretion being used. For example, I can see an owner of a remote holiday home being allowed to rent it out as much as they want. But in high density housing, such as apartments, terraced houses and semi-ds, I reckon thinks will be more restrictive. The owners of these types of dwellings are more likely to get reported too as the chance for recurrent disruption of neighbours is greater.

Graham

__Alex__ wrote: »

I can see discretion being used. For example, I can see an owner of a remote holiday home being allowed to rent it out as much as they want. But in high density housing, such as apartments, terraced houses and semi-ds, I reckon thinks will be more restrictive. The owners of these types of dwellings are more likely to get reported too as the chance for recurrent disruption of neighbours is greater.

That would probably be a sensible approach.

__Alex__

Graham wrote: »

That would probably be a sensible approach.

I think so. Surely it'd be good to have those rural holiday homes in use year-round? Brings in money to small communities. Some American friends of mine use their holiday home about eight weeks of the year themselves, spread out over the year. The house is really near the Burren and the Cliffs of Moher. We used to get to use the house a few weekends a year before AirBnB. They used some other letting agency and got a few bookings a year which they were happy enough with. When they switched to AirBnB, the whole thing blew up and now when they are not there, there are wall-to-wall bookings. It's great for them, and they also have a friend in Ireland who used to clean the house for them after each booker left. She's a mother with three young kids so it's a handy number for her while the kids are at school and she's got a lot more work since they started booking through AirBnB. So this is a success story which is why it shouldn't be completely outlawed. But high density is different, so I think a case-by-case system would be the best way.

Graham

__Alex__ wrote: »

So this is a success story which is why it shouldn't be completely outlawed. But high density is different, so I think a case-by-case system would be the best way.

I don't think it should be outlawed at all.

Many holiday homes have specific restrictions on permanent occupancy, it's entirely appropriate for these to be made available as short-term lets.

There's certainly an argument that properties outside of rent-pressure-zones should similarly be exempted in some form.

Inside RPZs I do think restrictions are necessary. Something like a maximum of 30 nights per year for residential accommodation without planning would be reasonable.

murphaph

Odin Thousands Flapjack wrote: »

Its not so clear cut.

Airbnb is planning compliant for definite if the home owner is renting a room in his home even if he is renting a rooms all the time so you cannot have a blanket statement that "airbnb is in breach of planning" or "airbnb full time is in breach of planning"

Airbnb is definitely planning compliant if renting a full house on occasion (i.e. while you are on holiday yourself, out of the country for work which could be very regularly for some) so you cannot have a blanket statement that "renting a full house on airbnb is in breach of planning".

So you are left with a "house let full time on airbnb is in breach of planning" but who is to decide what full time is, what if there is lots of downtime (i.e. no takers for renting it), what if the person does use it themselves as a base in a city, place to stay during holidays etc etc but lets it the rest of the the time on airbnb. What if someone is using it for airbnb all the time but extended lets up to 6 months?

It's very difficult to make a statement about it being in breach of planning as you really can't know for sure unless its judged to be so by a planning authority.

Indeed. Even here in Berlin where airbnb is "banned" it is actually allowed once the minimum stay is 2 months as then the tenant is deemed to have made Berlin their home.

Plenty of call for 2 month airbnb stays here for new arrivals looking to get settled in more permanent accommodation but not wanting to pay hotel prices for that time.

mrslancaster

I thought I read somewhere that a B&B only needed planning permission for a change of use if it was for more than 4 guest bedrooms...

Graham

mrslancaster wrote: »

I thought I read somewhere that a B&B only needed planning permission for a change of use if it was for more than 4 guest bedrooms...

I doubt the Temple Bar apartment which was the subject of the recent An Bord Pleanála ruling had more than 4 bedrooms.

mrslancaster

You're right there Graham, it was a two bed apartment in a property that has a retail unit on the ground floor and 5 apartments above.

I hadn't read the details before but just reading the ABP ruling and the planners reasons for the 'material change of use' it makes a lot of sense. Sounds like the other residents were fed up with all the extra activity in the building too.

Graham

Apparently AirBnB are in discussions with the government to prohibit "unauthorised rentals" such as those which do not have proper planning permission.

Talks are under way with Airbnb to prohibit "unauthorised rentals" such as those which do not have proper planning permission.

"The department's joint commitment with Airbnb is to co-develop protocols and processes to facilitate home sharing while preventing unwelcome and unauthorised rentals being advertised on the Airbnb platform," Mr ? Cl?irigh said.

He was speaking at the Oireachtas Committee on Housing and Homelessness, where a senior Dublin City Council official admitted that there was a problem with enforcement.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/clampdown-on-airbnb-rentals-with-no-planning-permission-35853863.html

Caliden

There's a large amount of apartments in Hanover Quay that are used for airbnb. Empty Monday-Thursday and always occupied on weekends by tourists.

Extremely annoying given how hard it is to find accommodation at the moment.

Claw Hammer

Caliden wrote: »

There's a large amount of apartments in Hanover Quay that are used for airbnb. Empty Monday-Thursday and always occupied on weekends by tourists.

Extremely annoying given how hard it is to find accommodation at the moment.

Why don't you squeal?

Graham

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Why don't you squeal?

Looks like there may be no need to report unauthorised developments (I assume that's what you meant) if AirBnB put in place "protocols and processes to facilitate home sharing while preventing unwelcome and unauthorised rentals".

dubdev

More hot air from the DoT. AirBnB is only one of several companies in Dublin facilitating short-term lets.

The department needs to take a top town, decisive approach instead of uttering civil-servant speak canvassing the companies involved for suggestions. We already have planning laws in place, like everything else it's a question of the will to enforce them.

In the case of AirBnB, instead of the wishy-washy "protocols and processes to facilitate home sharing", remind them that they chose to set up shop in Ireland and and are subject to the laws of the State. They are providing a service which results in the widespread misuse of property assets and facilitates the subversion of regulation, planning or otherwise. The burden is on AirBnB to prevent unscrupulous lettings, not the state or neighbouring apartment owners.

4ensic15

dubdev wrote: »

More hot air from the DoT. AirBnB is only one of several companies in Dublin facilitating short-term lets.

The department needs to take a top town, decisive approach instead of uttering civil-servant speak canvassing the companies involved for suggestions. We already have planning laws in place, like everything else it's a question of the will to enforce them.

In the case of AirBnB, instead of the wishy-washy "protocols and processes to facilitate home sharing", remind them that they chose to set up shop in Ireland and and are subject to the laws of the State. They are providing a service which results in the widespread misuse of property assets and facilitates the subversion of regulation, planning or otherwise. The burden is on AirBnB to prevent unscrupulous lettings, not the state or neighbouring apartment owners.

It is the owners who should know what planning they have, not AirBnB. It is the owners who are the criminals and the if the councils were doing their job they would catch them at it and stop them.

murphaph

In Berlin we're now seeing developers building short stay apartment blocks as an alternative to normal residential. Wonder how long it will be before we see this effect in Dublin.

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

In Berlin we're now seeing developers building short stay apartment blocks as an alternative to normal residential. Wonder how long it will be before we see this effect in Dublin.

I understand there's already a few aparthotel type projects on the cards.

Personally I have no objection to properly planned/located short-term accommodation like this. It's a much better alternative than trying to surreptitiously cram tourists into residential developments.

katy39

How hard will it be to get planning permission to holiday let and does it need approval of the management cmpany ?

murphaph

Graham wrote: »

I understand there's already a few aparthotel type projects on the cards.

Personally I have no objection to properly planned/located short-term accommodation like this. It's a much better alternative than trying to surreptitiously cram tourists into residential developments.

Ultimately it's the land that's scarce. An aparthotel being built means an apartment block is not.

If the issue is that airbnb is robbing the residential lettings market of units, then the same issue exists with aparthotels.

jamesthepeach

Good think airbnb isn't the only game in town.
If they want to take themselves out of the market, plenty of other ways to let short term.

Graham

katy39 wrote: »

How hard will it be to get planning permission to holiday let and does it need approval of the management cmpany ?

I don't expect it will be very easy for the likes of apartments particularly where you have neighbours who are likely to object.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see restrictions in the leases for most apartments, check your lease. Can management companies even change the terms of a lease after the fact? Interesting question.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Good think airbnb isn't the only game in town.
If they want to take themselves out of the market, plenty of other ways to let short term.

Of course there are, all with a fraction of the scale of AirBnB so largely irrelevant.

4ensic15

Graham wrote: »

I don't expect it will be very easy for the likes of apartments particularly where you have neighbours who are likely to object.

I also wouldn't be surprised to see restrictions in the leases for most apartments, check your lease. Can management companies even change the terms of a lease after the fact? Interesting question.

The terms of a lease can't be changed but there are other ways of catching an owner. there is a requirement to notify the management company of every person staying at the address. they can introduce security measures regarding keys and car parking. It would be quite difficult to insist on doing AirBnB if there was a hostile management company, even with planning permission.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

Of course there are, all with a fraction of the scale of AirBnB so largely irrelevant.

I think you underestimate the ability of people to adapt.
Try booking an Airbnb in Berlin, but not through airbnb. A whole host of options open up. It's actually easier and better than going through airbnb.