Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

serfboard

L1011 wrote: »

Dublin City Council *do* CPO vacant properties;

The obviously Marxist/Stalinst Dublin City Council you mean - sure what else would you expect?

Don't be giving the lie to the nonsense that "vacant properties can't be CPO'd" with your facts!

STB.

serfboard wrote: »

Says who? You?


Oh really? Items of major infrastructure only? Where in the constitution does it say that?

Tell you what, you read what you want to read in isolation, that way you can pick and choose what you want to ignore and you can feel better about yourself. The same way you chose to ignore what CPO applies to (major infrastructure - roads) and what it doesn't apply to (Housing needs).

L1011 wrote: »

Dublin City Council *do* CPO vacant properties; albeit to flip almost immediately. They published another list of 5 last week.

http://www.dublincity.ie/main-menu-services-planning/derelict-sites

Derelict homes/Dangerous Buildings and vacant properties are two vastly different things which is what the chap who raised the matter needs to realise.

Derelict Sites Act wrote:

The Derelict Sites Act defines a derelict site as any land that “detracts, or is likely to detract, to a material degree from the amenity, character or appearance of land in the neighbourhood of the land in question because of ”:

Structures which are in a ruinous, derelict or dangerous condition, or
The neglected, unsightly or objectionable condition of the land or of structures on it, or
The presence, deposit or collection of litter, rubbish, debris or waste

ckblackrock

kceire wrote: »

Already requires planning.
Dublin City Council have already issued enforcement notices on Airbnb complaints this year. It requires a change of use planning application, particularly if the home owner is not remaining in the house.

I read a while back that B&Bs with less than 4 guest rooms don't need planning permission, so if I have two spare rooms and rent to tourists, I dont need pp. Is that right? I tried to google it but can find nothing to confirm this.

On another note: surely Airbnb is only a platform for lettings, I dont know why people keep saying Airbnb when short term lettings could equally be made via Hostels.com or EBookers, Hotels.com etc.

davindub

ckblackrock wrote: »

I read a while back that B&Bs with less than 4 guest rooms don't need planning permission, so if I have two spare rooms and rent to tourists, I dont need pp. Is that right? I tried to google it but can find nothing to confirm this.

On another note: surely Airbnb is only a platform for lettings, I dont know why people keep saying Airbnb when short term lettings could equally be made via Hostels.com or EBookers, Hotels.com etc.

They do need planning permission as a dwelling, if that is complied with, yes you can operate a B&B. Offhand google planning regulations
2001

ckblackrock

davindub wrote: »

They do need planning permission as a dwelling, if that is complied with, yes you can operate a B&B. Offhand google planning regulations
2001

Yes, I meant an existing house, with no additional building works, merely change of use 2 rooms to use as b&b.

L1011

STB. wrote: »

Tell you what, you read what you want to read in isolation, that way you can pick and choose what you want to ignore and you can feel better about yourself. The same way you chose to ignore what CPO applies to (major infrastructure - roads) and what it doesn't apply to (Housing needs).



Derelict homes/Dangerous Buildings and vacant properties are two vastly different things which is what the chap who raised the matter needs to realise.

They aren't "major infrastructure" either, though.

Your very narrow view of what CPO can be applied to is not agreed with by legislation or action.

STB.

L1011 wrote: »

They aren't "major infrastructure" either, though.

Your very narrow view of what CPO can be applied to is not agreed with by legislation or action.

I am very aware of what the legislation is and isnt. You may call my view narrow. I may regard your comments as pedantic and largely irrelevant to the discussion.

NOWEHERE in legislation is there a facility for CPOing "vacant properties".

There is a CPO process for dangerous or derelict properties since 1964 BUT its a vastly different process to its majority and MOST common use in the compulsory purchase for major infrastructure, which has been in place since before the foundation of the state. (1775 infact).

That people confuse the levels of common good or do not understand that one bit of historic legislation is for economic necessity whilst the other is for Health & Safety is the height of reading what you want to read and is non-sensicial argument with no legislative basis or backing Its grasping at straws that are not there and are most certainly not a legally viable solution to the housing situation.

serfboard wrote: »

43.2.1 and 43.2.2 mean that the State can do what it wants when it is for the common good - and that includes CPOing properties, when required.

After all, we CPO land to build roads - the same principle can apply to CPOing vacant properties.

So why hasn't the State done it? Because FF/FG haven't wanted to.

L1011

STB. wrote: »

I am very aware of what the legislation is and isnt. You may call my view narrow. I may regard your comments as pedantic and largely irrelevant to the discussion.

NOWEHERE in legislation is there a facility for CPOing "vacant properties".

There is a CPO process for dangerous or derelict properties since 1964 BUT its a vastly different process to its majority and MOST common use in the compulsory purchase for major infrastructure, which has been in place since before the foundation of the state. (1775 infact).

That people confuse the levels of common good or do not understand that one bit of historic legislation is for economic necessity whilst the other is for Health & Safety is the height of reading what you want to read and is non-sensicial argument with no legislative basis or backing Its grasping at straws that are not there and are most certainly not a legally viable solution to the housing situation.

You aren't the one who gets to decide what is and isn't on topic.

You made statements about the limits of CPO that are not actually correct and are now revising the scope that you claim is allowed to one that is still almost certainly not as far as is possible

Samuel T. Cogley

Anymore news on this - seems to be a long time coming for what was touted as urgent legislation.

machalla

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Anymore news on this - seems to be a long time coming for what was touted as urgent legislation.

From media reports I'd read in recent weeks it seems Tourism (Shane Ross) is fighting with Housing (Eoghan Murphy) over the terms of the legislation.