2021 Irish Property Market chat - *mod warnings post 1*

Balluba

schmittel wrote: »

Me too, as fabulous as it is I wouldn't look twice at that house in Bettystown compared to the one on Coliemore Rd for the same money.

Re the WFH thing, I know a few people with the wherewithal to spend 3.5m on a house, and not one of them is constrained by the amount of time of their boss expects them to spend at their desk. I suspect this is true of the majority of buyers at that price point.

More of a factor lower down I would have thought.

Grandparents of an in-law of mine previously owned a house on Coliemore Road. They had to get out of the house seemingly during very bad storms with the danger of flying boulders.

major interest

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, the planning regulator is telling Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown to scale back on the amount of land zoned for housing by 7,000 units.

So, the council has the land to build on and apparently want it built upon, but the planning regulator says there won't be enough demand to meet that amount of housing.

We either have a housing shortage or we don't. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county council has obviously identified enough land to build an additional 7,000 homes over that period, but the planning regulator says those homes aren't needed.

Am I reading the article wrong?

I think part of their argument is that the zoning proposals in the DLRCOCO development plan would promote further urban sprawl into green belt areas of the county.

The national planning framework is clear that development plans should aim for compact growth in existing built up and brownfield areas over further sprawl. The county development plan goes against this with all the residential being planned for peripheral areas like Kiltiernan, Rathmichael, Old Conna etc.

JimmyVik

I understand the need for houses, but Ireland really has been blighted.
A friend from abroad once commented to me that every little village in Ireland goes like this as you are driving through it.

First you see signs for the village in the countryside.
Next come hundred of totally out of place little housing estates.
Then the village center looks old and sometimes a bit rundown, but nice. Then as you are leaving more horrible little estates along the side of the road.

They really need to think of the aesthetics and not just the need to knock up houses.

DataDude

schmittel wrote: »

Re the WFH thing, I know a few people with the wherewithal to spend 3.5m on a house, and not one of them is constrained by the amount of time of their boss expects them to spend at their desk. I suspect this is true of the majority of buyers at that price point.

Cyrus wrote: »

Oddly I know a couple of people with that buying power and they have both been at their desk the whole last year with no one else in the office because the owner expected it (even though he spent the last 6 months on holiday as really really rich people can still do that )

Didn't think there'd be too many PAYE workers in Ireland that have bosses (i.e. non-CEO's) with €3.5m buying power (€700k+ incomes)! What are these people working in? Aviation Leasing?

Wanderer78

JimmyVik wrote: »

I understand the need for houses, but Ireland really has been blighted.
A friend from abroad once commented to me that every little village in Ireland goes like this as you are driving through it.

First you see signs for the village in the countryside.
Next come hundred of totally out of place little housing estates.
Then the village center looks old and sometimes a bit rundown, but nice. Then as you are leaving more horrible little estates along the side of the road.

They really need to think of the aesthetics and not just the need to knock up houses.

relatively cheaper land = bigger profits = happy days!

hometruths

DataDude wrote: »

Didn't think there'd be too many PAYE workers in Ireland that have bosses (i.e. non-CEO's) with €3.5m buying power (€700k+ incomes)! What are these people working in? Aviation Leasing?

Whilst none of the people I know are PAYE, I imagine there are a few with that kind of buying power, through equity build up in other houses, stock market investments etc etc married to a high salary. But yes, I'd agree most will be beyond saying how high when the boss says jump!

As a general point, irrespective of the price range, there are plenty of people out there whose buying power is significantly greater than 3 times their income + deposit, simply thanks to fortuitously timing a purchase in or around 2012/13.

Cal4567

major interest wrote: »

I think part of their argument is that the zoning proposals in the DLRCOCO development plan would promote further urban sprawl into green belt areas of the county.

The national planning framework is clear that development plans should aim for compact growth in existing built up and brownfield areas over further sprawl. The county development plan goes against this with all the residential being planned for peripheral areas like Kiltiernan, Rathmichael, Old Conna etc.

Agree 100%. Yet another example unfortunately of a local authority trying to push its own agenda in contravention to a national policy on planning. And further evidence that the expertise is at national level rather than local. We saw what happened in the CT years where there was no plan other than just build.

Cal4567

JimmyVik wrote: »

I understand the need for houses, but Ireland really has been blighted.
A friend from abroad once commented to me that every little village in Ireland goes like this as you are driving through it.

First you see signs for the village in the countryside.
Next come hundred of totally out of place little housing estates.
Then the village center looks old and sometimes a bit rundown, but nice. Then as you are leaving more horrible little estates along the side of the road.

They really need to think of the aesthetics and not just the need to knock up houses.

We must have the same friend. They said exactly the same to me. The sheer amount of one off houses was also shocking to them, compared to anywhere else.

JimmyVik

JimmyVik wrote: »

I understand the need for houses, but Ireland really has been blighted.
A friend from abroad once commented to me that every little village in Ireland goes like this as you are driving through it.

First you see signs for the village in the countryside.
Next come hundred of totally out of place little housing estates.
Then the village center looks old and sometimes a bit rundown, but nice. Then as you are leaving more horrible little estates along the side of the road.

They really need to think of the aesthetics and not just the need to knock up houses.

There’s been no regard for the aesthetics of the rural landscape in this country for decades. Whether that is one off housing or developments. The country is blighted with ugly bungalows that should have never been approved.

We really ruined it, and continue to do so but now on a bigger scale

PropQueries

Deleted User wrote: »

There’s been no regard for the aesthetics of the rural landscape in this country for decades. Whether that is one off housing or developments. The country is blighted with ugly bungalows that should have never been approved.

We really ruined it, and continue to do so but now on a bigger scale

So, we have the planning regulator telling Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county council to scale back on the amount of land zoned for housing by c. 7,000 units. An area that is not only very close to the city centre, but also has the best transport links in the country i.e. Dart, Luas, road networks, Bus services etc.

We also shouldn't be building in rural areas.

What's the solution? Everyone move to London?

I'm assuming the real reason the planning regulator told them to pull back was that it has finally clicked (at the top levels anyway), that we have way more houses than we know what to do with and the massive oversupply of housing will become evident to all very shortly IMO.

As the regulator told the council:

"The letter said the council’s proposal to zone some 22,800 housing units – including part of the Cherrywood strategic development zone – was “significantly in excess of housing supply targets” calculated in line with guidelines that Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien published in December.

As the office estimates the housing supply target for the county to be in the region of 15,000 for the plan period, the proposed land use zoning is based on an excess of 6,800 units, which would indicate that excessive lands are proposed to be zoned under the draft plan,” it said."

Now, compare this to the reports of up to 47,000 homes needed each and every year that had been put out by the experts last year.

It's beginning to look like (to me anyway), that there is no real housing shortage and this is finally being conceded at the top.

The_Conductor

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, the planning regulator is telling Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown to scale back on the amount of land zoned for housing by 7,000 units.

So, the council has the land to build on and apparently want it built upon, but the planning regulator says there won't be enough demand to meet that amount of housing.

We either have a housing shortage or we don't. Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown county council has obviously identified enough land to build an additional 7,000 homes over that period, but the planning regulator says those homes aren't needed.

Am I reading the article wrong?

That is not what the planning authority are telling DLR at all.
They are pointing out a serious deficit in services and facilities, including the road network for the area- and they used computer modelling to show the effect on road traffic on the M50 and at various junctions (Carrickmines etc) of the proposed numbers of dwellings for the area. They also took into account degradation of the availability of public transport (particularly the Luas) were the units to go in Cherrywood in the numbers suggested.

There is responsible development- and there is irresponsible development- and DLR have gotten their knuckles rapped for neglecting to properly account for increased demand particularly on the transport network- with a particularly scathing study they quoted which was undertaken at the Carrickmines junction.

Its all well and good to get into an 1984 frame of mind- 4 legs good, 2 legs bad (development good, lack of development bad)- however, its quite stupid in its short mindedness- particularly when looking at the 2028 plan.

Cyrus

DataDude wrote: »

Didn't think there'd be too many PAYE workers in Ireland that have bosses (i.e. non-CEO's) with €3.5m buying power (€700k+ incomes)! What are these people working in? Aviation Leasing?

You’d be surprised ! But it’s generally ltip related and people at the c suite level.

I think those days for aviation leasing are over as well !

PropQueries

The_Conductor wrote: »

That is not what the planning authority are telling DLR at all.
They are pointing out a serious deficit in services and facilities, including the road network for the area- and they used computer modelling to show the effect on road traffic on the M50 and at various junctions (Carrickmines etc) of the proposed numbers of dwellings for the area. They also took into account degradation of the availability of public transport (particularly the Luas) were the units to go in Cherrywood in the numbers suggested.

There is responsible development- and there is irresponsible development- and DLR have gotten their knuckles rapped for neglecting to properly account for increased demand particularly on the transport network- with a particularly scathing study they quoted which was undertaken at the Carrickmines junction.

Its all well and good to get into an 1984 frame of mind- 4 legs good, 2 legs bad (development good, lack of development bad)- however, its quite stupid in its short mindedness- particularly when looking at the 2028 plan.

That's not what the planning regulator was stating as the reason though. He stated:

"calculated in line with guidelines that Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien published in December... As the office estimates the housing supply target for the county to be in the region of 15,000 for the plan period, the proposed land use zoning is based on an excess of 6,800 units, which would indicate that excessive lands are proposed to be zoned under the draft plan"

Villa05

Wanderer78 wrote:

Yup, this is deliberately done, but the disturbing fact is, our government and their advisors don't truly understand the complexities involved, and their part in this mess

I think they do understand perfectly well the consequences of their actions as many of the advisors are industry insiders who profit substantialy from these polices. The Gov think that higher house price = higher votes

How else could you have a supply issue addressed with multiple demand side mechanisms and not 1 supply side solution

fliball123 wrote:

So are we still in the dark ages where the women folk stay at home and mind the childer and do the whole house wifey thing? For the last 30 years people have bought a house as a couple (this is the accepted social norm) and its well affordable for two people on the median income looking to buy a house at the median cost currently. The facts and figures are there in the post. Like I have said on here ad nauseam if you want to live in a highly sought after location such as Dublin you will need to pay a premium

How come only 20% at best of the potential ftb market are able to buy each year, considering that the alternative of renting is much more expensive

Cantstandsya wrote:

Do people think the current frenzy will end with prices falling back down to pre-Covid levels or simply stabilising at the top of the curve they're currently on?

Will any post-lockdown supply surge be greater than the pent up demand?

Depends what time frame you are referring to.
The ftb grant implies that house prices are unaffordable for the ftb demographic
The Gov response appears to be shared ownership where up to 40% of the price is underwritten by the state which would make prices more unaffordable and more importantly completely unsustainable.

Short to medium term is not looking good for ftb
If I had a gun to my head and needed to buy, I'd be inclined to buy before the shared ownership scheme as this will push up prices in every segment of the market.
Think of the 100% mortgages, and how they affected the market in the noughties. Would you have been better off buying before or after their introduction.

The endgame is a crash, your options are
Do you get in at
2004/5
2008
Or avoid it completely

Not financial advise, just my reading of it

Zenify

Posted by An RI rua in recession predictions.

https://twitter.com/PierrePoilievre/status/1385171529743310851?s=19

Talks about how house price inflation has been linked to central banks printing money. Good listen, a lot of stuff I agree with.

awec

PropQueries wrote: »

That's not what the planning regulator was stating as the reason though. He stated:

"calculated in line with guidelines that Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien published in December... As the office estimates the housing supply target for the county to be in the region of 15,000 for the plan period, the proposed land use zoning is based on an excess of 6,800 units, which would indicate that excessive lands are proposed to be zoned under the draft plan"

This quote doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

That's not what the planning regulator was stating as the reason though. He stated:

"calculated in line with guidelines that Minister for Housing Darragh O’Brien published in December... As the office estimates the housing supply target for the county to be in the region of 15,000 for the plan period, the proposed land use zoning is based on an excess of 6,800 units, which would indicate that excessive lands are proposed to be zoned under the draft plan"

The excess here is over what has planned infrastructure for it - precisely what the post you are trying to argue against stated, and this is what the rest of the article says.

This is a very, very final warning to stop taking out of context quotes from articles and/or misrepresenting their contents. You cannot try shape an article to support your viewpoint or pretend that one does. Please not that putting "IMO" after misrepresenting the contents of an article does not stop it being a misrepresentation - you are still pretending it supports your opinion.

(coincidentally, the deputy planning regulator who wrote the letter is actually a she not a he but that's not in that article)

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

The excess here is over what has planned infrastructure for it - precisely what the post you are trying to argue against stated, and this is what the rest of the article says.

This is a very, very final warning to stop taking out of context quotes from articles and/or misrepresenting their contents. You cannot try shape an article to support your viewpoint or pretend that one does.

(coincidentally, the deputy planning regulator who wrote the letter is actually a she not a he but that's not in that article)

I don’t see the word “infrastructure” mentioned once in that article.

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

That is not what the planning authority are telling DLR at all.
They are pointing out a serious deficit in services and facilities, including the road network for the area- and they used computer modelling to show the effect on road traffic on the M50 and at various junctions (Carrickmines etc) of the proposed numbers of dwellings for the area. They also took into account degradation of the availability of public transport (particularly the Luas) were the units to go in Cherrywood in the numbers suggested.

There is responsible development- and there is irresponsible development- and DLR have gotten their knuckles rapped for neglecting to properly account for increased demand particularly on the transport network- with a particularly scathing study they quoted which was undertaken at the Carrickmines junction.

Its all well and good to get into an 1984 frame of mind- 4 legs good, 2 legs bad (development good, lack of development bad)- however, its quite stupid in its short mindedness- particularly when looking at the 2028 plan.

Did you get all this from the article Props linked? I must say I didn't see any computer modelling at the Carrickmines junction?

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

I don’t see the word “infrastructure” mentioned once in that article.

The National Planning Framework which is the primary thing referred to as the reason covers that.

The article does not mean what you appear to want it to mean.

They are not limiting development based on a lack of demand.

The_Conductor

schmittel wrote: »

Did you get all this from the article Props linked? I must say I didn't see any computer modelling at the Carrickmines junction?

It was reported extensively on RTE news- and I've a copy of the report myself (which is sitting gathering dust under my coffee pot in the kitchen, unread). Thanks for reminding me- I'm supposed to be commenting on it.........

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

The National Planning Framework which is the primary thing referred to as the reason covers that.

The article does not mean what you appear to want it to mean.

They are not limiting development based on a lack of demand.

Can you provide a link to the document that states that DLR can’t be allowed to build more than c 2,500 new homes per annum over the next 6 years due to a lack of infrastructure. Genuinely interested.

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

Can you provide a link to the document that states that DLR can’t be allowed to build more than c 2,500 new homes per annum over the next 6 years due to a lack of infrastructure. Genuinely interested.

Hope you have a few days free

There is no other reason that a local authority would be told they'd have excess zoning other than a lack of infrastructure to support it

You cannot invent things to support your "there's actually no demand" narrative.

hometruths

The_Conductor wrote: »

It was reported extensively on RTE news- and I've a copy of the report myself (which is sitting gathering dust under my coffee pot in the kitchen, unread). Thanks for reminding me- I'm supposed to be commenting on it.........

Odd that the Irish Times didn't think to mention in relation to there being no need for the excess units.

Villa05

The_Conductor wrote:

That is not what the planning authority are telling DLR at all. They are pointing out a serious deficit in services and facilities, including the road network for the area- and they used computer modelling to show the effect on road traffic on the M50 and at various junctions (Carrickmines etc) of the proposed numbers of dwellings for the area. They also took into account degradation of the availability of public transport (particularly the Luas) were the units to go in Cherrywood in the numbers suggested.

I wonder if the modelling included a potential reduction in traffic as a result of wfh

PropQueries

L1011 wrote: »

Hope you have a few days free

There is no other reason that a local authority would be told they'd have excess zoning other than a lack of infrastructure to support it

You cannot invent things to support your "there's actually no demand" narrative.

Well, if true, I think that’s the top property related news story of 2021. If what you say is true and that no more than c. 2,500 new homes can be built per year in all of Dun-Laoghaire-Rathdown between 2022 and 2028.

Just to make sure that I’m not getting this wrong. You’re saying that the documents you linked will state that Dun-Laoghaire-Rathdown can’t allow more than c. 2,500 new homes to be built per annum in their whole area due to a lack of infrastructure?

If I’m wrong in my interpretation of what you’re stating, I genuinely apologise. And, I’m being very sincere.

Hubertj

schmittel wrote: »

Odd that the Irish Times didn't think to mention in relation to there being no need for the excess units.

Where of who says there is no need for excess units vs there is not the infrastructure for excess units? The Irish times article refers to the ESRI estimates out to 2040 - to me that’s what the regulator is going by? What were ESRI estimates for the country - 30k-40k per year for the country? More than 2.5k per year for dun laoire alone sounds a lot?

L1011

PropQueries wrote: »

Well, if true, I think that’s the top property related news story of 2021. If what you say is true and that no more than c. 2,500 new homes can be built per year in all of Dun-Laoghaire-Rathdown between 2022 and 2028.

Just to make sure that I’m not getting this wrong. You’re saying that the documents you linked will state that Dun-Laoghaire-Rathdown can’t allow more than c. 2,500 new homes to be built per annum in their whole area due to a lack of infrastructure?

If I’m wrong in my interpretation of what you’re stating, I genuinely apologise. And, I’m being very sincere.

The planning framework was not created in 2021 and was heavily covered at the time.

I am not going to continue to engage with you on this.

Hubertj

Villa05 wrote: »

I wonder if the modelling included a potential reduction in traffic as a result of wfh

I presume they would. Some parts of DLR are well served by public transport - DART, 46A, 7 etc. I believe dart will expand services over time Further west there is the luas, n11, m50 etc. but they all have capacity issues. Then you also have to consider congestion in different parts of DLR. they made changes to road layouts in dun laoire last year and I think some people say it made traffic worse...

hometruths

L1011 wrote: »

There is no other reason that a local authority would be told they'd have excess zoning other than a lack of infrastructure to support it.

Of course there is. For instance that the projected need from 22 - 28 is significantly less than the zoned lands provide for.

As per the Dept of Housing, quoted in the Irish Times article which makes no mention of infrastructure.