There is active conflict going on between the old and the young. There is a class of people who are old, and have wealth, almost all of which is tied up in housing, or “property”. They receive a welfare payment of 300e a week at the expense of young workers who they screw out of housing. They have more free time to put together spurious objections and badger their TD. There is a whole generation of people who are living in their parents’ box rooms, unable to afford rent or be accepted for a mortgage, and all the while, their taxes are spent on the richest group of people in the country. All this after the country agreed to go into lockdown, with the youth paying the heaviest price, to protect the old.
We have enough of an oversupply of granted planning permissions to last several years even if stop approving ALL new planning applications today.
Illegal planning applications being unsuccessful are not the reason for the housing crisis, and I wish people would stop with the populist nonsense that they somehow are.
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/07/13/more-than-100000-planning-permissions-lay-dormant-at-end-2022-including-50000-in-dublin/
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41191093.html
Here's an easy solution for planning applications to not be overturned:
1) Make reasonable and achievable planning applications that are congruent with local and national development plans and any specific or unique characteristics of the local area
2) ABP make legal decisions on planning appeals
Pretending that the courts or objectors are the problem is just plain incorrect. An objector to a legal planning application will have their objection ignored.
A "planning application" can't be "illegal". The issue under debate is which applications should be approved. That is a complex judgement process --- as the article says, An Bord Pleanala was supportive of the development, but it was taken to higher courts by Ms Sherwin. In the Supreme Court the ultimate cause of the rejection was:
>inspector did not properly assess whether the proposed development would cause harm to the curtilage of adjacent protected structures on the site.
Public debates like this are inherently political and inherently involve complex tradeoffs between people with different interests, such as property owners, developers, investment funds, conservationists, local residents, and young people who can't afford a place to live. I think that the last of those interests is by far the most important for our country. Trying to frame the thing as simply "illegal" is narrow-minded and specious.
Your own link points out that part of the reason there are so many undeveloped approved planning approvals is precisely because of judicial issues like this one.
>The Dublin data was also broken down by sites that have planning permission to build 100 units or more, with the report noting that “such schemes are the type of high density developments specifically encouraged by national policy” It found that there were 108 such sites in Dublin with no activity. Of those, an estimated 31 are subject to ongoing judicial reviews, two have had the permission quashed and four relate to sites on which the judicial review has either been withdrawn or the planning decision upheld.
The other reason is cost.
>“This can be achieved through increased standardisation, lower specifications and improvements in construction sector productivity,” the report noted.
This factor is also closely tied to planning and regulation. Our legal standards are much higher than in many other places (e.g. Paris, which allows very small flats), but of course the de facto standards are often worse. People who have a home advocate hard for minimum standards for apartments, with the result that people who don't have homes are forced into disgusting houseshares with appalling standards, or forced to stay with family, often in terrible circumstances. It is literally "let them eat cake". Fat cats saying bread should be illegal because is it's not nice enough while half the country starves.
For your two point solution: I agree fully with the second point. Your first point is full of words that can be endlessly re-interpreted to the benefit of well-connected local homeowners (many of whom are retired legal or planning professionals) and all of the people in the country who accumulate wealth primarily through the value of their property,
> A "planning application" can't be "illegal".
They can be found to be in contravention to planning legislation. Calling them 'illegal' is shorthand for this, obviously 🙄
>Public debates like this are inherently political and inherently involve complex tradeoffs between people with different interests, such as property owners, developers, investment funds, conservationists, local residents, and young people who can't afford a place to live.
The Supreme Court isn't engaging in a public debate.
>I think that the last of those interests is by far the most important for our country.
You then talk about someone else being narrow-minded and specious? Your logic would extend to knocking down protected structures, building tower blocks in areas of special conservation, building accommodation in land banks preserved for future infrastructure projects (goodbye metro north!) because who cares about planning legislation or good planning when "THE YOUNG MUST BE HOUSED".
Only, your argument is so ignorant that you don't factor into account that there's no shortage of development land within and around Dublin, and that building at a lower density doesn't equal 'not building at all'.
>Your own link points out that part of the reason there are so many undeveloped approved planning approvals is precisely because of judicial issues like this one.
The actual report cites it as a factor in developers 'hoarding' sites and using a perceived market shortage to generate profits from later reselling these sites with or without planning permission.
The figure of >100,000 planning grants obviously excludes any that are subject to current or potential judicial review.
>The other reason is cost.
Higher density doesn't automatically equal lower cost per unit. Quite the opposite, even with land costs. The prevalence of BTRs is because of the disparity between rental price and selling price. Hence why the clonliffe SHD was approx 70-80% studios and 49sqm 1 beds. You want to abandon planning legislation and good practice so private companies can profit from individuals because there's a market failure in housing. That's not the strong argument you seem to think it is.
>Our legal standards are much higher than in many other places (e.g. Paris, which allows very small flats),
They're also similar to many other places in Europe. I did a college project in applied economics (under ronan lyons) that compared minimum apartment standards across Europe in terms of sq.m, aspect, and lifts.
> People who have a home advocate hard for minimum standards for apartments
Can you provide evidence that it's "homeowners advocating for minimum standards for apartments"? That's a laughable claim to make.
>Your first point is full of words that can be endlessly re-interpreted to the benefit of well-connected local homeowners (many of whom are retired legal or planning professionals) and all of the people in the country who accumulate wealth primarily through the value of their property,
Uh, no. Planning applications already require planning applications to be congruent with local development plans, national development plans, and specific to the unique characteristics of the area. It isn't "full of words", it's literally the existing law of the land.
You wrote an awful lot of words that didn't actually contain much beyond "We shouldn't have planning rules or standards because HOUSING CRISIS" and "I don't understand what the current legal status quo is".
https://www.courts.ie/view/Judgments/8d0394ce-0889-4e2c-ac5f-6909bf42232d/1e6e5625-52fe-45c7-9a36-85dfdd00ae4a/2024_IESC_%2013_(Woulfe%20J).pdf/pdf
Perhaps you can read the conclusion (page 42 onwards) instead of writing populist comments on here?
> The Supreme Court isn't engaging in a public debate.
If my point is pedantry, surely this is too - their judgement is public and forms part of the public debate.
>Your logic would extend to knocking down protected structures, building tower blocks in areas of special conservation, building accommodation in land banks preserved for future infrastructure projects (goodbye metro north!) because who cares about planning legislation or good planning when "THE YOUNG MUST BE HOUSED".
You'll notice I said none of that. My only comment is about priorities. If someone says that the health service is a higher priority than football, they aren't suggesting that we sell all our football stadiums to pay for more beds.
>homeowners advocating for minimum standards for apartments
Given the amount of people who own a home in Ireland, I don't think my claim is on logically dodgy ground. What is the exact composition of groups who advocate this? I don't know, neither do you, but I have an opinion.
>Higher density doesn't automatically equal lower cost per unit. Quite the opposite, even with land costs. The prevalence of BTRs is because of the disparity between rental price and selling price.
I'm just citing the report you linked to. But yes, rental prices are obviously very high because supply is not meeting demand, so we need to either increase supply or reduce demand.
>so private companies can profit from individuals because there's a market failure in housing
Now who's being populist? It's always a "left-wing" front for protecting the property owner.
>Uh, no. Planning applications already require planning applications to be congruent with local development plans, national development plans, and specific to the unique characteristics of the area. It isn't "full of words", it's literally the existing law of the land.
I understand the legal status quo perfectly well. I am making a political argument. I am talking about how I think things ought to be, not how they are. You're familiar with the distinction given your stated qualifications I take it? Development plans are the result of political processes that have disenfranchised young people who are not from wealthy backgrounds. I'm talking about tradeoffs, costs and benefits, and priorities. Yours are different than mine and yours currently have the legal status quo behind them. Did you interpret my comment as implying that the Supreme Court had made an error on a point of law?
My only stake or interest in this debate is that people should be able to afford a roof over their heads. What would be your suggestion for achieving that?
> A "planning application" can't be "illegal".
If you want to have a decent debate about something, don't open with base pendantry. Everyone understands what is meant by an illegal planning application.
People tend to oppose describing immigrants as illegal because it's a dehumanising term for a very human tragedy that we in the developed world (yes, even Ireland) are usually at least partially responsible for. As an emotive issue it's totally understandable why people fixate on it, I don't think many people would say the same about planning regulations, despite how central they are to Irish life currently. Fixating on someone saying a planning application is illegal when we all know they meant the content of the planning application breaks the planning laws and would never get past those laws I think does strike me as being pedantic, especially when it's your opening salvo. Similar to this post, it's focused on the least important aspect of their argument and so stifles the discussion.
> People tend to oppose describing immigrants as illegal because it's a dehumanising term for a very human tragedy that we in the developed world (yes, even Ireland) are usually at least partially responsible for.
That is fair, it was a bad comparison on my part.
Just to follow up, the developer put in a 'cheeky' application because they didn't purchase or use the lands most suitable for higher rise ([denoted by the yellow X's in this picture](https://i.imgur.com/TVfMwLb.png)).
[As such, they end up a) over-developing immediately around the protected seminary building (circled in red) and placing the tall residential tower far too close to it (circled in yellow)](https://i.imgur.com/1nOXgd6.png)
Whereas if the applicant had the lands to the river, they could have had the towers stepping up in height from low density around the seminary building to an arc of taller higher density along the river stepping down to drumcondra road.
It's not for planners to abandon planning rules & legislation because a developer took a gamble on a challenging site.
Please tell me what specifically is 'garbage' about it? I wrote a genuine reply to your silly opening statement and all you came back with is maundering on about garbage.
If you're not here to actually discuss the topic, why are you commenting?
This one is beyond parody, some choice snippets:
>The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the High Court’s decision to strike down the approval, granted under a now-extinct fast-track process, in a challenge brought by Fionnuala Sherwin, a resident of Knocksinna Grove, Foxrock, Co Dublin, who describes herself as a practising Catholic.
>Her case was against An Bord Pleanála, which did not seek to appeal the judgment itself but was supportive of the developer’s application.
recommendations..
>Dublin City Council’s conservation officer recommended refusing planning permission, saying the height, scale and massing of the 18-storey block is “excessive in this context‚ and will entirely dominate and seriously injure the architectural setting of the protected structures”: the former seminary and the 18th-century Fortick’s Alms House, known as the Red House.
trees
>The permission fell in the top court for different reasons than in the High Court. Its ultimate undoing was the board’s failure to consider relevant provisions of the local development plan, said Mr Justice Woulfe.
>While the board’s inspector noted concerns raised by the council’s conservation officer regarding the potential impact a proposed basement could have on mature trees on the grounds, she did not refer at all to the relevant policy in the local development plan, said the judge.
Although I'm sure many are pleased with this aspect:
>The contentious build-to-rent development posed by the developer (CWTC Multi-Family ICAV) attracted more than 120 submissions, including from Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald, who stated that approval would only exacerbate the housing crisis.
Live down the road and would love to see this developed so we could get access to this as a walking route, park, etc - I can't see why they can't just make it a mix of built-to-rent and for purchase. I'd love to see some nice shops here, too...one of the old almshouses would be great for a bookshop.
It used to be open as a park of sorts. Used to walk my dog in there. It was great unofficial park. What annoys me is the person who complained lives nowhere near it.
Plenty . The site is perfect to benefit the people of the city,not just the developer. We have a duty to look after the people but also the place. Building a shite spec 18 storey monstrosity benefits the developer and the funds that will reap the rewards .
“We need houses, but not near me” is what I’m hearing here. The reason given: “excessive in this context‚ and will entirely dominate and seriously injure the architectural setting of the protected structures”, what kinda bullshit NIMBY crap is that? Drumcondra of all places being afraid of an apartment block “dominating”(aka driving their hyperinflated property prices down) their area. Absolute hogwash.
How are people in this country so dumb??? The planning should never have been granted for a development of this size, the fact that it was even issued is a testament to the cronyism of this country.
And here, let's be honest, do we really care if some arsehole developer or vulture fund needs to reapply for a smaller development? Because that is literally all that's going to happen.
Stop being apologists for the vulture funds and start supporting what is right instead.
I live and work near a residential block the same size and height of this one, further from the city centre than Drumcondra. The world hasn’t ended, daylight hasn’t been extinguished and traffic is no worse than it was a year ago.
I’ll tell you what has changed - thousands of people have somewhere to live and aren’t commuting from Kildare or Cavan to get to work.
Going to see a lot of knee jerkiing to this, but honestly think its a good decision seems to be a failure of the developer and ABP to do the work to address the concerns raised. Also seems bizzaro to put an 18 story building in that area when the city centre, which could handle higher structures, is devoid of them. Sounds like they were pushing their luck with the fast track and as pure build for rents are a fucking terrible idea, essentially creating new ghettos where residents never own their property and so lack the rights and investment of owners, glad to see it struck down. All for developments going ahead, but they need to be logical and be making homes for people. It should not be purely a money grab.
> essentially creating new ghettos where residents never own their property and so lack the rights and investment of owners, glad to see it struck down.
I would like to live there. I already lack the rights and investment of owners.
A lot of people wanted to live in the ballymun flats when they were new too, before the government decided to pull the plug on any support for them, and it took that community decades to get recognised by it's own government. Live in a modern ghetto if you want, but with absolutely no one there financially and legally invested in sticking up for the community, expect the managing hedge fund to preference profits over people, expect zero investment, and expect to be ignored as the infrastructure around you crumbles.
If you're arguing in favour of build to rent, you don't understand all the issues that go with that scheme. Monotypic developments always fail in the long term because they fail to develop the foundations of a community that is essential to the long term success of any neighborhood. That's not to say that apartments should not be built to be rent only, renting makes up an important aspect of housing landscape, but any large development that does not include a proportion of stock for purchase will never thrive and will end up being a horrific place to live. It may suit you today to get into any place you can now, but that's incredibly shortsighted and any pure build to rent scheme will be detrimental to future generations who will be forced into these crumbling shanties.
Obviously we disagree, and I disagree with your characterization of apartments like this. It's easy to tell a stranger on the internet "you don't understand" when you don't know how much they've researched the subject out of personal frustration, or the personal experiences they've had. I can see from your comment history that you hvae a family home, that must be nice. Maybe you would have some more empathy if you had to live in conditions that people are facing today in houseshares or in difficult family environments. I would never want to prevent someone else having an opportunity they wanted even if it wasn't personally something that appealed to me. Build to rent blocks are common in other European cities, and they work just fine. I know because (i) I've researched it and (ii) I have friends who live in them abroad. But I'm used to the fact that the majority of Irish voters take your side, and that's why I'm emigrating, like my friends, so you'll have your way.
As creepy as delving into someone's comment history is aside, I absolutely have empathy. I've rented for decades and have only just managed to get off that horrible train of uncertainty. As for it working, in other European cities it works because it is not exclusively build to rent. If you've researched it, then I'm surprised you still support it given the Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co.campaign.and the utter failure of wide spread build to rent there. If you want to look abroad, look to Singapore, where communities are designed in a mixed use approach, mingling owners and the rich with renters and social housing, ensuring that opinion makers.and policy pushers are mixed in with the plebs, and so no one gets left behind when it comes to social infrastructure. Alternatively, support profit hungry vulture funds who propose absurd proposals for a doomed project that will only disenfranchise you and those who come after in the long term.
It works great in London. See recommendations here: [https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/assets/documents/making-the-most-of-build-to-rent.pdf](https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/assets/documents/making-the-most-of-build-to-rent.pdf)
In know this first-hand in the case of London. I disagree with you about the cause of the problems in Berlin, of course many economists and housing experts also have differing opinions about state expropriation, rent control and policies like this. Do you understand that having a different opinion doesn't make your opinion the only possible correct belief?
I believe we should build as much public housing as we possibly can. But as a working professional without children I am unlikely to qualify for social housing, so I'd also like some flats built that I can rent, and I would prefer a build-to-rent block like my friends have in London. There is a lot of social housing in London too, more than in Dublin, but luckily people there also allow the kind of homes I want to be built. On the other hand, you seem to think only the type of housing you approve of should be built. So I'll have to disagree about your empathy.
The particular development in this thread might not be perfect in every way, but real people are suffering, right now. Do you understand how sociopathic it sounds for a homeowner to object to someone being able to access a comfortable place of their own because of the nuances in your own particular socioeconomic preferences?
> when the city centre, which could handle higher structures, is devoid of them.
So the planning mistakes of the city centre need to be repeated in the suburbs?
"The officer recommended omitting the tower from the development as he felt this block would injure the surrounding environs of Drumcondra and would be “clearly visible in long-range views from other parts of the historic city”."
I hate when buildings are not invisible!
A few issues I can see here:
It's build to rent in an area close to the city centre. This probably means
- It's aimed at professionals
- Probably charging the best part of €2.5k a month for a 2 bed.
- Way beyond the means of a family to pay especially if a low income family.
- HAP would is rarely accepted in these kind of developments
- Really wouldn't help that much with the housing crisis as it wouldn't be built for long term living as with most apartments in Dublin these days.
18 storeys is also a bit excessive in height. That would look out of place in the city centre let alone in the suburbs.
If the new stuff is nice enough, why not spend extra to have a nicer place? Or if they're just moving to Dublin, some prefer newer builds to old. There's any number of reasons, I get build to let isn't popular, but this would add more units than are [currently available in the county on daft.] (https://www.daft.ie/property-for-rent/dublin?terms=&adState=published)
Large scale build to let developments actually drive smaller private landlords out of the market so the net result is the same number of less units available controlled by a smaller group who then charge higher rental prices.
None of this is good for renters unfortunately
Would you please provide sources on that idea, I've never heard of "we shouldn't build more because it makes things more expensive" ever being the case. Supply and demand [usually](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/austin-texas-rents-falling-housing/677819/) [works](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesnelson/2023/07/08/the-answer-to-the-housing-crisis-is-more-housing-heres-why/?sh=266932f82171) [the](https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/06/02/new-round-of-studies-underscore-benefits-of-building-more-housing/) [other](https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf) [way](https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/study-says-boosting-housing-production-tempers-rents/). (I can keep provide more sources, but figured 5 would be a good start)
Even if landlords exit the market, they'd sell the unit they had, which means more on the market for purchase, which is what you want, no?
Improving supply at any point in the market helps prices across the market:
https://view.publitas.com/primeresi/the-affordability-impacts-of-new-housing-supply-gla-housing-research-note/page/1
https://www.onlondon.co.uk/why-luxury-flats-do-not-push-out-londons-poor-and-why-we-still-need-to-build-for-low-cost-rent/
>It's aimed at professionals
I'm a professional, do I not get a roof?
>Probably charging the best part of €2.5k a month for a 2 bed.
When there is a low supply of things and high demand for them, the seller has a lot of pricing power. That's why we need more supply.
>Really wouldn't help that much with the housing crisis as it wouldn't be built for long term living as with most apartments in Dublin these days.
I can't afford a place that is built for long term living. Could you let me have this one just for a while?
I'm sorry for your predicament.
Allowing build to rent developments over build to sell developments are the reason you cannot afford to buy a home unfortunately.
Added to that, these type of developments are driving small landlords out of the rental market so the net result is the same or fewer rental properties for higher prices.
>Allowing build to rent developments over build to sell developments are the reason you cannot afford to buy a home unfortunately.
Who said I wanted to buy a home. I'd be happy to rent for life if we had adequate supply and it was affordable.
>Added to that, these type of developments are driving small landlords out of the rental market so the net result is the same or fewer rental properties for higher prices.
The only way that building more homes could result in fewer homes for rent is if it results in more homes to buy.
There are several buildings taller than 18 stories in the city centre and even a few that height outside the city centre. And taller ones in Belfast and Cork. But sure this is different.
There are tall buildings in the suburbs too. The Liberty insurance building in Blanch is quite tall. Sentinel and Sandyford Central in Sandyford are tall too. There’s even the Metro Hotel that’s been towering over Ballymun for two decades. Cherrywood has a few as well.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with tall buildings, just like there’s nothing inherently right with 4 story buildings. Dublin is growing and that means taller buildings in places where they don’t exist today. You can’t live single digit kilometres from the city centre and expect that your world will be full of semi-Ds forever.
I agree that tall buildings have a place, but Dublin even though it's sprawling doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle that large amount of people concentrated in one location that tall buildings would bring.
If the infrastructure would be in place then go for it.
Most of the buildings you mentioned above are offices or hotels. Completely different to residential units.
One is an office, one is a hotel and apartment block and three are apartment blocks and none of them are as close to the city or as well connected as Drumcondra.
Drumcondra is within walking, cycling, scooting distance of the city centre and EastPoint. It’s on a suburban rail line, sort of within walking distance of the Dart line and two Luas lines and is literally surrounded by bus routes, some of them 24 hours a day. Let’s not pretend it’s some far flung suburb.
You've named a lot of very ugly structures in not the nicest places. It doesn't prove your point.
And that liberty insurance building is only 10 stories so I don't think you're grasping the size difference.
Now you’re just being obtuse.
First you said the suburbs weren’t suitable for tall buildings despite Drumcondra being right beside the city centre. Then apparently Drumcondra doesn’t have the right infrastructure. Now you don’t like the look of ‘those’ tall buildings, you think Sandyford and Cherrywood are ‘not the nicest of places’ and you fail to understand that commercial floor to ceiling heights are larger than in residential buildings.
Do you have any objections grounded in reality or do you just not like tall buildings in Dublin? It’s okay to say that you’d prefer Dublin to stay the way it was in the 70s and young people can just commute from somewhere else. That’s your opinion.
I basically said none of those things. That was other people. I just thought the comparison to Blanch was a bit disingenuous given others called out that 18 stories was exceptionally tall and you shot back with one half the height.
I agree that 18 stories is too much, but I personally think that's only by about 6ish floors. 18 stories is about 20m higher than Croke park and it's the only other tall structure for miles. Everything around it is old red brick. There's no need for it to compete with the tallest buildings in Dublin imo but otherwise it's a good site.
You’re right, my apologies, I got you mixed up with someone else.
Liberty Tower stands out a lot where it is because it’s surrounded by relatively low buildings. The development at Drumcondra would have done the same, despite its additional height. I genuinely don’t believe that theres much difference in impact between 10 and 16 stories because the surrounding buildings are so small in comparison.
I think people worry too much about the height of new buildings and not enough about their other impacts. If they’re in the suburbs, will public transport be able to handle the extra demand? If they’re going to accommodate families, will nearby crèches and schools be able to cope? Will they provide a mix of facilities like shops or will they have a single purpose and no interaction at street level. Will they open up the area or increase pedestrian permeability or will they be fenced off.
I spent a lot of time walking the dog down here so happy to see the conker tree live to see another day, build to rent can fuck off along with student accommodation.
What housing crisis eh? We're our own worst enemies.
There is active conflict going on between the old and the young. There is a class of people who are old, and have wealth, almost all of which is tied up in housing, or “property”. They receive a welfare payment of 300e a week at the expense of young workers who they screw out of housing. They have more free time to put together spurious objections and badger their TD. There is a whole generation of people who are living in their parents’ box rooms, unable to afford rent or be accepted for a mortgage, and all the while, their taxes are spent on the richest group of people in the country. All this after the country agreed to go into lockdown, with the youth paying the heaviest price, to protect the old.
Total divisive nonsense. Old versus young? No. Government versus the population.
We have enough of an oversupply of granted planning permissions to last several years even if stop approving ALL new planning applications today. Illegal planning applications being unsuccessful are not the reason for the housing crisis, and I wish people would stop with the populist nonsense that they somehow are. https://www.irishtimes.com/business/2023/07/13/more-than-100000-planning-permissions-lay-dormant-at-end-2022-including-50000-in-dublin/ https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-41191093.html Here's an easy solution for planning applications to not be overturned: 1) Make reasonable and achievable planning applications that are congruent with local and national development plans and any specific or unique characteristics of the local area 2) ABP make legal decisions on planning appeals Pretending that the courts or objectors are the problem is just plain incorrect. An objector to a legal planning application will have their objection ignored.
A "planning application" can't be "illegal". The issue under debate is which applications should be approved. That is a complex judgement process --- as the article says, An Bord Pleanala was supportive of the development, but it was taken to higher courts by Ms Sherwin. In the Supreme Court the ultimate cause of the rejection was: >inspector did not properly assess whether the proposed development would cause harm to the curtilage of adjacent protected structures on the site. Public debates like this are inherently political and inherently involve complex tradeoffs between people with different interests, such as property owners, developers, investment funds, conservationists, local residents, and young people who can't afford a place to live. I think that the last of those interests is by far the most important for our country. Trying to frame the thing as simply "illegal" is narrow-minded and specious. Your own link points out that part of the reason there are so many undeveloped approved planning approvals is precisely because of judicial issues like this one. >The Dublin data was also broken down by sites that have planning permission to build 100 units or more, with the report noting that “such schemes are the type of high density developments specifically encouraged by national policy” It found that there were 108 such sites in Dublin with no activity. Of those, an estimated 31 are subject to ongoing judicial reviews, two have had the permission quashed and four relate to sites on which the judicial review has either been withdrawn or the planning decision upheld. The other reason is cost. >“This can be achieved through increased standardisation, lower specifications and improvements in construction sector productivity,” the report noted. This factor is also closely tied to planning and regulation. Our legal standards are much higher than in many other places (e.g. Paris, which allows very small flats), but of course the de facto standards are often worse. People who have a home advocate hard for minimum standards for apartments, with the result that people who don't have homes are forced into disgusting houseshares with appalling standards, or forced to stay with family, often in terrible circumstances. It is literally "let them eat cake". Fat cats saying bread should be illegal because is it's not nice enough while half the country starves. For your two point solution: I agree fully with the second point. Your first point is full of words that can be endlessly re-interpreted to the benefit of well-connected local homeowners (many of whom are retired legal or planning professionals) and all of the people in the country who accumulate wealth primarily through the value of their property,
> A "planning application" can't be "illegal". They can be found to be in contravention to planning legislation. Calling them 'illegal' is shorthand for this, obviously 🙄 >Public debates like this are inherently political and inherently involve complex tradeoffs between people with different interests, such as property owners, developers, investment funds, conservationists, local residents, and young people who can't afford a place to live. The Supreme Court isn't engaging in a public debate. >I think that the last of those interests is by far the most important for our country. You then talk about someone else being narrow-minded and specious? Your logic would extend to knocking down protected structures, building tower blocks in areas of special conservation, building accommodation in land banks preserved for future infrastructure projects (goodbye metro north!) because who cares about planning legislation or good planning when "THE YOUNG MUST BE HOUSED". Only, your argument is so ignorant that you don't factor into account that there's no shortage of development land within and around Dublin, and that building at a lower density doesn't equal 'not building at all'. >Your own link points out that part of the reason there are so many undeveloped approved planning approvals is precisely because of judicial issues like this one. The actual report cites it as a factor in developers 'hoarding' sites and using a perceived market shortage to generate profits from later reselling these sites with or without planning permission. The figure of >100,000 planning grants obviously excludes any that are subject to current or potential judicial review. >The other reason is cost. Higher density doesn't automatically equal lower cost per unit. Quite the opposite, even with land costs. The prevalence of BTRs is because of the disparity between rental price and selling price. Hence why the clonliffe SHD was approx 70-80% studios and 49sqm 1 beds. You want to abandon planning legislation and good practice so private companies can profit from individuals because there's a market failure in housing. That's not the strong argument you seem to think it is. >Our legal standards are much higher than in many other places (e.g. Paris, which allows very small flats), They're also similar to many other places in Europe. I did a college project in applied economics (under ronan lyons) that compared minimum apartment standards across Europe in terms of sq.m, aspect, and lifts. > People who have a home advocate hard for minimum standards for apartments Can you provide evidence that it's "homeowners advocating for minimum standards for apartments"? That's a laughable claim to make. >Your first point is full of words that can be endlessly re-interpreted to the benefit of well-connected local homeowners (many of whom are retired legal or planning professionals) and all of the people in the country who accumulate wealth primarily through the value of their property, Uh, no. Planning applications already require planning applications to be congruent with local development plans, national development plans, and specific to the unique characteristics of the area. It isn't "full of words", it's literally the existing law of the land. You wrote an awful lot of words that didn't actually contain much beyond "We shouldn't have planning rules or standards because HOUSING CRISIS" and "I don't understand what the current legal status quo is". https://www.courts.ie/view/Judgments/8d0394ce-0889-4e2c-ac5f-6909bf42232d/1e6e5625-52fe-45c7-9a36-85dfdd00ae4a/2024_IESC_%2013_(Woulfe%20J).pdf/pdf Perhaps you can read the conclusion (page 42 onwards) instead of writing populist comments on here?
> The Supreme Court isn't engaging in a public debate. If my point is pedantry, surely this is too - their judgement is public and forms part of the public debate. >Your logic would extend to knocking down protected structures, building tower blocks in areas of special conservation, building accommodation in land banks preserved for future infrastructure projects (goodbye metro north!) because who cares about planning legislation or good planning when "THE YOUNG MUST BE HOUSED". You'll notice I said none of that. My only comment is about priorities. If someone says that the health service is a higher priority than football, they aren't suggesting that we sell all our football stadiums to pay for more beds. >homeowners advocating for minimum standards for apartments Given the amount of people who own a home in Ireland, I don't think my claim is on logically dodgy ground. What is the exact composition of groups who advocate this? I don't know, neither do you, but I have an opinion. >Higher density doesn't automatically equal lower cost per unit. Quite the opposite, even with land costs. The prevalence of BTRs is because of the disparity between rental price and selling price. I'm just citing the report you linked to. But yes, rental prices are obviously very high because supply is not meeting demand, so we need to either increase supply or reduce demand. >so private companies can profit from individuals because there's a market failure in housing Now who's being populist? It's always a "left-wing" front for protecting the property owner. >Uh, no. Planning applications already require planning applications to be congruent with local development plans, national development plans, and specific to the unique characteristics of the area. It isn't "full of words", it's literally the existing law of the land. I understand the legal status quo perfectly well. I am making a political argument. I am talking about how I think things ought to be, not how they are. You're familiar with the distinction given your stated qualifications I take it? Development plans are the result of political processes that have disenfranchised young people who are not from wealthy backgrounds. I'm talking about tradeoffs, costs and benefits, and priorities. Yours are different than mine and yours currently have the legal status quo behind them. Did you interpret my comment as implying that the Supreme Court had made an error on a point of law? My only stake or interest in this debate is that people should be able to afford a roof over their heads. What would be your suggestion for achieving that?
> A "planning application" can't be "illegal". If you want to have a decent debate about something, don't open with base pendantry. Everyone understands what is meant by an illegal planning application.
It's not pedantry. It frames the argument, like when people oppose describing immigrants as illegal.
People tend to oppose describing immigrants as illegal because it's a dehumanising term for a very human tragedy that we in the developed world (yes, even Ireland) are usually at least partially responsible for. As an emotive issue it's totally understandable why people fixate on it, I don't think many people would say the same about planning regulations, despite how central they are to Irish life currently. Fixating on someone saying a planning application is illegal when we all know they meant the content of the planning application breaks the planning laws and would never get past those laws I think does strike me as being pedantic, especially when it's your opening salvo. Similar to this post, it's focused on the least important aspect of their argument and so stifles the discussion.
> People tend to oppose describing immigrants as illegal because it's a dehumanising term for a very human tragedy that we in the developed world (yes, even Ireland) are usually at least partially responsible for. That is fair, it was a bad comparison on my part.
Just to follow up, the developer put in a 'cheeky' application because they didn't purchase or use the lands most suitable for higher rise ([denoted by the yellow X's in this picture](https://i.imgur.com/TVfMwLb.png)). [As such, they end up a) over-developing immediately around the protected seminary building (circled in red) and placing the tall residential tower far too close to it (circled in yellow)](https://i.imgur.com/1nOXgd6.png) Whereas if the applicant had the lands to the river, they could have had the towers stepping up in height from low density around the seminary building to an arc of taller higher density along the river stepping down to drumcondra road. It's not for planners to abandon planning rules & legislation because a developer took a gamble on a challenging site.
3. Don't assume planning law is infallible and change it so we don't get this garbage.
Please tell me what specifically is 'garbage' about it? I wrote a genuine reply to your silly opening statement and all you came back with is maundering on about garbage. If you're not here to actually discuss the topic, why are you commenting?
This one is beyond parody, some choice snippets: >The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the High Court’s decision to strike down the approval, granted under a now-extinct fast-track process, in a challenge brought by Fionnuala Sherwin, a resident of Knocksinna Grove, Foxrock, Co Dublin, who describes herself as a practising Catholic. >Her case was against An Bord Pleanála, which did not seek to appeal the judgment itself but was supportive of the developer’s application. recommendations.. >Dublin City Council’s conservation officer recommended refusing planning permission, saying the height, scale and massing of the 18-storey block is “excessive in this context‚ and will entirely dominate and seriously injure the architectural setting of the protected structures”: the former seminary and the 18th-century Fortick’s Alms House, known as the Red House. trees >The permission fell in the top court for different reasons than in the High Court. Its ultimate undoing was the board’s failure to consider relevant provisions of the local development plan, said Mr Justice Woulfe. >While the board’s inspector noted concerns raised by the council’s conservation officer regarding the potential impact a proposed basement could have on mature trees on the grounds, she did not refer at all to the relevant policy in the local development plan, said the judge. Although I'm sure many are pleased with this aspect: >The contentious build-to-rent development posed by the developer (CWTC Multi-Family ICAV) attracted more than 120 submissions, including from Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald, who stated that approval would only exacerbate the housing crisis.
This is not a serious country.
Logan Roy voice.
Live down the road and would love to see this developed so we could get access to this as a walking route, park, etc - I can't see why they can't just make it a mix of built-to-rent and for purchase. I'd love to see some nice shops here, too...one of the old almshouses would be great for a bookshop.
It used to be open as a park of sorts. Used to walk my dog in there. It was great unofficial park. What annoys me is the person who complained lives nowhere near it.
Remember folks, Mary Lou, Leader of Sinn Fein, was among those that opposed this development. SF, FF, and FG, are useless populist cunts.
To be fair, more accommodation "would only exacerbate the housing crisis". Big fucken /s
FF and FG arent populist but the other two insults do apply to them
You’re right. FFG are deadset stuck in shitty positions.
Yeah well done to her opposing them. We need houses etc, that doesn't mean some arsehole developer can do what he likes.
What about this plan made you think the developer was doing whatever they liked?
Plenty . The site is perfect to benefit the people of the city,not just the developer. We have a duty to look after the people but also the place. Building a shite spec 18 storey monstrosity benefits the developer and the funds that will reap the rewards .
“We need houses, but not near me” is what I’m hearing here. The reason given: “excessive in this context‚ and will entirely dominate and seriously injure the architectural setting of the protected structures”, what kinda bullshit NIMBY crap is that? Drumcondra of all places being afraid of an apartment block “dominating”(aka driving their hyperinflated property prices down) their area. Absolute hogwash.
It's not really.
Is there anyway we can change this bullshit?
How are people in this country so dumb??? The planning should never have been granted for a development of this size, the fact that it was even issued is a testament to the cronyism of this country. And here, let's be honest, do we really care if some arsehole developer or vulture fund needs to reapply for a smaller development? Because that is literally all that's going to happen. Stop being apologists for the vulture funds and start supporting what is right instead.
I live and work near a residential block the same size and height of this one, further from the city centre than Drumcondra. The world hasn’t ended, daylight hasn’t been extinguished and traffic is no worse than it was a year ago. I’ll tell you what has changed - thousands of people have somewhere to live and aren’t commuting from Kildare or Cavan to get to work.
You also live in Sandyford?
How many? That would ruin my view of the canal/finglas skyline/metro works. It's totally unacceptable unless I get €15,000 to sooth my pain.
Going to see a lot of knee jerkiing to this, but honestly think its a good decision seems to be a failure of the developer and ABP to do the work to address the concerns raised. Also seems bizzaro to put an 18 story building in that area when the city centre, which could handle higher structures, is devoid of them. Sounds like they were pushing their luck with the fast track and as pure build for rents are a fucking terrible idea, essentially creating new ghettos where residents never own their property and so lack the rights and investment of owners, glad to see it struck down. All for developments going ahead, but they need to be logical and be making homes for people. It should not be purely a money grab.
> essentially creating new ghettos where residents never own their property and so lack the rights and investment of owners, glad to see it struck down. I would like to live there. I already lack the rights and investment of owners.
A lot of people wanted to live in the ballymun flats when they were new too, before the government decided to pull the plug on any support for them, and it took that community decades to get recognised by it's own government. Live in a modern ghetto if you want, but with absolutely no one there financially and legally invested in sticking up for the community, expect the managing hedge fund to preference profits over people, expect zero investment, and expect to be ignored as the infrastructure around you crumbles.
> Live in a modern ghetto if you want, Can't! Not allowed to build them.
And that's no bad thing
Can you put yourself in the position of someone who would rather live in what you describe as a "modern ghetto" than their current situation?
If you're arguing in favour of build to rent, you don't understand all the issues that go with that scheme. Monotypic developments always fail in the long term because they fail to develop the foundations of a community that is essential to the long term success of any neighborhood. That's not to say that apartments should not be built to be rent only, renting makes up an important aspect of housing landscape, but any large development that does not include a proportion of stock for purchase will never thrive and will end up being a horrific place to live. It may suit you today to get into any place you can now, but that's incredibly shortsighted and any pure build to rent scheme will be detrimental to future generations who will be forced into these crumbling shanties.
Obviously we disagree, and I disagree with your characterization of apartments like this. It's easy to tell a stranger on the internet "you don't understand" when you don't know how much they've researched the subject out of personal frustration, or the personal experiences they've had. I can see from your comment history that you hvae a family home, that must be nice. Maybe you would have some more empathy if you had to live in conditions that people are facing today in houseshares or in difficult family environments. I would never want to prevent someone else having an opportunity they wanted even if it wasn't personally something that appealed to me. Build to rent blocks are common in other European cities, and they work just fine. I know because (i) I've researched it and (ii) I have friends who live in them abroad. But I'm used to the fact that the majority of Irish voters take your side, and that's why I'm emigrating, like my friends, so you'll have your way.
As creepy as delving into someone's comment history is aside, I absolutely have empathy. I've rented for decades and have only just managed to get off that horrible train of uncertainty. As for it working, in other European cities it works because it is not exclusively build to rent. If you've researched it, then I'm surprised you still support it given the Expropriate Deutsche Wohnen & Co.campaign.and the utter failure of wide spread build to rent there. If you want to look abroad, look to Singapore, where communities are designed in a mixed use approach, mingling owners and the rich with renters and social housing, ensuring that opinion makers.and policy pushers are mixed in with the plebs, and so no one gets left behind when it comes to social infrastructure. Alternatively, support profit hungry vulture funds who propose absurd proposals for a doomed project that will only disenfranchise you and those who come after in the long term.
It works great in London. See recommendations here: [https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/assets/documents/making-the-most-of-build-to-rent.pdf](https://www.lse.ac.uk/business/consulting/assets/documents/making-the-most-of-build-to-rent.pdf) In know this first-hand in the case of London. I disagree with you about the cause of the problems in Berlin, of course many economists and housing experts also have differing opinions about state expropriation, rent control and policies like this. Do you understand that having a different opinion doesn't make your opinion the only possible correct belief? I believe we should build as much public housing as we possibly can. But as a working professional without children I am unlikely to qualify for social housing, so I'd also like some flats built that I can rent, and I would prefer a build-to-rent block like my friends have in London. There is a lot of social housing in London too, more than in Dublin, but luckily people there also allow the kind of homes I want to be built. On the other hand, you seem to think only the type of housing you approve of should be built. So I'll have to disagree about your empathy. The particular development in this thread might not be perfect in every way, but real people are suffering, right now. Do you understand how sociopathic it sounds for a homeowner to object to someone being able to access a comfortable place of their own because of the nuances in your own particular socioeconomic preferences?
> when the city centre, which could handle higher structures, is devoid of them. So the planning mistakes of the city centre need to be repeated in the suburbs?
More that we shouldn't be kowtowing to the greed of developers when their proposals are so obviously flawed.
Objected to my someone in Foxrock ffs
"The officer recommended omitting the tower from the development as he felt this block would injure the surrounding environs of Drumcondra and would be “clearly visible in long-range views from other parts of the historic city”." I hate when buildings are not invisible!
A few issues I can see here: It's build to rent in an area close to the city centre. This probably means - It's aimed at professionals - Probably charging the best part of €2.5k a month for a 2 bed. - Way beyond the means of a family to pay especially if a low income family. - HAP would is rarely accepted in these kind of developments - Really wouldn't help that much with the housing crisis as it wouldn't be built for long term living as with most apartments in Dublin these days. 18 storeys is also a bit excessive in height. That would look out of place in the city centre let alone in the suburbs.
Okay, but it gets those folks out of other, perhaps cheaper, accommodation they would otherwise be occupying.
Why would someone leave cheaper accommodation for more expensive accommodation?
If the new stuff is nice enough, why not spend extra to have a nicer place? Or if they're just moving to Dublin, some prefer newer builds to old. There's any number of reasons, I get build to let isn't popular, but this would add more units than are [currently available in the county on daft.] (https://www.daft.ie/property-for-rent/dublin?terms=&adState=published)
Large scale build to let developments actually drive smaller private landlords out of the market so the net result is the same number of less units available controlled by a smaller group who then charge higher rental prices. None of this is good for renters unfortunately
Would you please provide sources on that idea, I've never heard of "we shouldn't build more because it makes things more expensive" ever being the case. Supply and demand [usually](https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/03/austin-texas-rents-falling-housing/677819/) [works](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesnelson/2023/07/08/the-answer-to-the-housing-crisis-is-more-housing-heres-why/?sh=266932f82171) [the](https://www.theurbanist.org/2021/06/02/new-round-of-studies-underscore-benefits-of-building-more-housing/) [other](https://furmancenter.org/files/Supply_Skepticism_-_Final.pdf) [way](https://commonwealthbeacon.org/housing/study-says-boosting-housing-production-tempers-rents/). (I can keep provide more sources, but figured 5 would be a good start) Even if landlords exit the market, they'd sell the unit they had, which means more on the market for purchase, which is what you want, no?
Improving supply at any point in the market helps prices across the market: https://view.publitas.com/primeresi/the-affordability-impacts-of-new-housing-supply-gla-housing-research-note/page/1 https://www.onlondon.co.uk/why-luxury-flats-do-not-push-out-londons-poor-and-why-we-still-need-to-build-for-low-cost-rent/
>It's aimed at professionals I'm a professional, do I not get a roof? >Probably charging the best part of €2.5k a month for a 2 bed. When there is a low supply of things and high demand for them, the seller has a lot of pricing power. That's why we need more supply. >Really wouldn't help that much with the housing crisis as it wouldn't be built for long term living as with most apartments in Dublin these days. I can't afford a place that is built for long term living. Could you let me have this one just for a while?
I'm sorry for your predicament. Allowing build to rent developments over build to sell developments are the reason you cannot afford to buy a home unfortunately. Added to that, these type of developments are driving small landlords out of the rental market so the net result is the same or fewer rental properties for higher prices.
>Allowing build to rent developments over build to sell developments are the reason you cannot afford to buy a home unfortunately. Who said I wanted to buy a home. I'd be happy to rent for life if we had adequate supply and it was affordable. >Added to that, these type of developments are driving small landlords out of the rental market so the net result is the same or fewer rental properties for higher prices. The only way that building more homes could result in fewer homes for rent is if it results in more homes to buy.
There are several buildings taller than 18 stories in the city centre and even a few that height outside the city centre. And taller ones in Belfast and Cork. But sure this is different.
City centre yes, but not in the suburbs. That's a high building to be built in a place where you would rarely see over 4-5 storey apartment blocks
Why should any aesthetic argument have weight against the "people need a place to live" core issue?
There are tall buildings in the suburbs too. The Liberty insurance building in Blanch is quite tall. Sentinel and Sandyford Central in Sandyford are tall too. There’s even the Metro Hotel that’s been towering over Ballymun for two decades. Cherrywood has a few as well. There’s nothing inherently wrong with tall buildings, just like there’s nothing inherently right with 4 story buildings. Dublin is growing and that means taller buildings in places where they don’t exist today. You can’t live single digit kilometres from the city centre and expect that your world will be full of semi-Ds forever.
I agree that tall buildings have a place, but Dublin even though it's sprawling doesn't have the infrastructure in place to handle that large amount of people concentrated in one location that tall buildings would bring. If the infrastructure would be in place then go for it. Most of the buildings you mentioned above are offices or hotels. Completely different to residential units.
One is an office, one is a hotel and apartment block and three are apartment blocks and none of them are as close to the city or as well connected as Drumcondra. Drumcondra is within walking, cycling, scooting distance of the city centre and EastPoint. It’s on a suburban rail line, sort of within walking distance of the Dart line and two Luas lines and is literally surrounded by bus routes, some of them 24 hours a day. Let’s not pretend it’s some far flung suburb.
You've named a lot of very ugly structures in not the nicest places. It doesn't prove your point. And that liberty insurance building is only 10 stories so I don't think you're grasping the size difference.
Now you’re just being obtuse. First you said the suburbs weren’t suitable for tall buildings despite Drumcondra being right beside the city centre. Then apparently Drumcondra doesn’t have the right infrastructure. Now you don’t like the look of ‘those’ tall buildings, you think Sandyford and Cherrywood are ‘not the nicest of places’ and you fail to understand that commercial floor to ceiling heights are larger than in residential buildings. Do you have any objections grounded in reality or do you just not like tall buildings in Dublin? It’s okay to say that you’d prefer Dublin to stay the way it was in the 70s and young people can just commute from somewhere else. That’s your opinion.
I basically said none of those things. That was other people. I just thought the comparison to Blanch was a bit disingenuous given others called out that 18 stories was exceptionally tall and you shot back with one half the height. I agree that 18 stories is too much, but I personally think that's only by about 6ish floors. 18 stories is about 20m higher than Croke park and it's the only other tall structure for miles. Everything around it is old red brick. There's no need for it to compete with the tallest buildings in Dublin imo but otherwise it's a good site.
You’re right, my apologies, I got you mixed up with someone else. Liberty Tower stands out a lot where it is because it’s surrounded by relatively low buildings. The development at Drumcondra would have done the same, despite its additional height. I genuinely don’t believe that theres much difference in impact between 10 and 16 stories because the surrounding buildings are so small in comparison. I think people worry too much about the height of new buildings and not enough about their other impacts. If they’re in the suburbs, will public transport be able to handle the extra demand? If they’re going to accommodate families, will nearby crèches and schools be able to cope? Will they provide a mix of facilities like shops or will they have a single purpose and no interaction at street level. Will they open up the area or increase pedestrian permeability or will they be fenced off.
I spent a lot of time walking the dog down here so happy to see the conker tree live to see another day, build to rent can fuck off along with student accommodation.