NIRSA demands a full investigation into charges of cronyism in planning

ei.sdraob

Prof Kitchin said it would be foolhardy to carry out a banking inquiry without also looking into planning mistakes.

In a 66-page report into the crisis, Nirsa lays blame for the property boom and bust squarely with the Government and local councils.

Nirsa says Nama, banking bailouts and nationalisation are worrying short-term moves involving “the protection of the interests of developers and speculators at the potential expense of the taxpayer.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0729/breaking37.html

Someone had the guts to speak out and call the spade a spade, well done

jmayo

That would be all well and good, but what exactly has this institute being doing since it was setup in 2001 ?

Did they not notice any planning difficulties during the bubble, all the while it has been receiving funding form the taxpayer ?

ei.sdraob

jmayo wrote: »

That would be all well and good, but what exactly has this institute being doing since it was setup in 2001 ?

Did they not notice any planning difficulties during the bubble, all the while it has been receiving funding form the taxpayer ?

Maybe they didnt receive their funding on time this time

Laminations

jmayo wrote: »

That would be all well and good, but what exactly has this institute being doing since it was setup in 2001 ?

Did they not notice any planning difficulties during the bubble, all the while it has been receiving funding form the taxpayer ?

jmayo, having some interaction with staff in NIRSA I know for a fact they do a lot more there than count houses. Regardless, what Rob Kitchin says about cronyism and the need for an inquiry is correct.

Welease

Laminations wrote: »

jmayo, having some interaction with staff in NIRSA I know for a fact they do a lot more there than count houses. Regardless, what Rob Kitchin says about cronyism and the need for an inquiry is correct.

Do we really need an enquiry?

Unlike the banking crisis etc.. the decisions and outcome of the planning process are there for all to see..

We know what the ideal situation is, we know there was lax process, we can see all the houses that were built (so we know the deviations)...

Is it worth spending X millions more to tell us what we already know?.. i.e. if you wanted, you could build 500 houses in the arse-end of nowhere without concern for required services or viability...

I'd rather the money was spent replacing every town planner in this country for failing in their duty, than telling us they didnt do their jobs properly.

Laminations

Welease wrote: »

Do we really need an enquiry?

Unlike the banking crisis etc.. the decisions and outcome of the planning process are there for all to see..

We know what the ideal situation is, we know there was lax process, we can see all the houses that were built (so we know the deviations)...

Is it worth spending X millions more to tell us what we already know?.. i.e. if you wanted, you could build 500 houses in the arse-end of nowhere without concern for required services or viability...

I'd rather the money was spent replacing every town planner in this country for failing in their duty, than telling us they didnt do their jobs properly.

I agree with you I suppose. The word enquiry is fast becoming the new 'tribunal'. Still though it beggars belief that developers were allowed buy their way out of the 20% social housing scheme and leave estates in disrepair while continuing to tender for other state projects (I'm thinking McNamara here). There needs to be some question asked about how and why we had continued house building when the numbers of vacant houses and estates were stacking up.

Welease

Laminations wrote: »

I agree with you I suppose. The word enquiry is fast becoming the new 'tribunal'. Still though it beggars belief that developers were allowed buy their way out of the 20% social housing scheme and leave estates in disrepair while continuing to tender for other state projects (I'm thinking McNamara here). There needs to be some question asked about how and why we had continued house building when the numbers of vacant houses and estates were stacking up.

Absolutely, I don't disagree... Sadly in this country, any attempt to investigate what went wrong will result in an expensive process to learn nothing and implement less...

dan_d

Fire them all.....sure they're not doing anything anyway, and they've screwed up very badly.As is blindingly obvious to all us ordinary people out here.

Is it "inquiry" or "enquiry"?

The Raven.

Welease wrote: »

Do we really need an enquiry?

Unlike the banking crisis etc.. the decisions and outcome of the planning process are there for all to see..

We know what the ideal situation is, we know there was lax process, we can see all the houses that were built (so we know the deviations)...

Is it worth spending X millions more to tell us what we already know?.. i.e. if you wanted, you could build 500 houses in the arse-end of nowhere without concern for required services or viability...

I'd rather the money was spent replacing every town planner in this country for failing in their duty, than telling us they didnt do their jobs properly.

This is a fascinating report, well written and easy to understand, with excellent graphs and charts, and an Excel workbook with further data. The most significant aspect of this report is that it highlights the role of the planning system in creating the property bubble, a fact that has been given precious little attention compared to the failure of the banking system.

Before reaching any conclusion as to whether an independent review is necessary, it is important to read the report (on the link below), rather than relying on newspaper articles about it. I think you might also be surprised to learn that it is not necessarily the town planners who are at fault, but other forces including those higher up the ladder.

As well as a catastrophic failure in Ireland’s banking and financial regulatory system, there has been a catastrophic failure of the planning system. In a housing boom planning should act as a counter-balance to the pressures of development in order to maintain a stable housing market and try to prevent boom and bust cycles. Planning should provide checks and balances to the excesses of development and act for the common good, even if that means taking unpopular decisions. However, during the Celtic Tiger period a laissez-faire approach to planning predominated at all levels of
governance that was insufficiently evidence-informed with respect to long-term demographic demand, market conditions and issues of sustainability, and which marginalised and ignored more cautious voices. Both the fiscal and planning levers of development were overly pro-growth. As a result, not only was there an unsustainable growth in property prices, but this was accompanied by a property building frenzy that led to a significant oversupply of housing (as well as offices, retail units and hotels) in almost all parts of the country. The level of over- development that has occurred will take years to correct and seriously hamper the recovery of the housing market and the operation of NAMA. Indeed, there are legitimate questions as to whether NAMA can succeed in its aims over its intended life-span.

It is our contention that an independent review of the operation of the planning system during the Celtic Tiger years be undertaken to consider fully the role of planning in the creation of the property bubble, similar to the Honohan (2010) and the Regling and Watson (2010) reports on banking and financial regulation. The review would examine planning policy formation and application, and the organisation, operation and regulation of planning within and across different agencies and at all scales in Ireland. It would investigate all aspects of the planning system and its operation, including charges of localism, cronyism and clientelism where appropriate. The inquiry should not take the form of a witch hunt or a blame game, but rather constitute a systemic review of how the planning system failed to counter and control the excesses of the boom and provide a more stable and sustainable pattern of development.

We simply cannot assume to be fully informed of all intricacies inherent in the current planning system and all that happens behind closed doors. Considering the scale of the effect that the failures of the planning system has had on the Irish economy, and the likelihood that it will happen again if it is not corrected, a few million euro for an investigation into the causes would be money well spent.

Link to the Report:

http://www.nuim.ie/nirsa/research/documents/WP59-A-Haunted-Landscape.pdf

ei.sdraob

Rather than simply describe what has occurred with respect to housing development
over the past twenty years, we seek to provide a detailed explanation of why the
bubble was created and the effects of it bursting. We also provide a critique of the
government’s response to the crisis, and in particular the creation of NAMA. We
suggest that seven key issues will need to be addressed before consumers regain
confidence, property prices bottom out, and the housing market starts to function
properly. First, supply and demand will need to be harmonized. Second, there has to
be a sustained growth in the economy with an associated fall in unemployment.
Third, house prices have to align more closely to average industrial earnings. Fourth,
affordable credit has to be available for first time buyers and those trading up. Fifth,
the uncertainties concerning NAMA and its operation have to dispelled, especially
since it will be controlling a sizable share of property and land. This necessitates full
transparency of the agency’s workings and the assets it is managing. Sixth,
consumers have to be satisfied that the banking crisis is truly over and that financial
institutions are properly regulated. Seventh, substantive changes need to occur in the
planning system to ensure that it works for the common good and produces
sustainable development.

interesting paragraph there

Dob74

ei.sdraob wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/0729/breaking37.html

Someone had the guts to speak out and call the spade a spade, well done

These planners called for high density housing and the re-zoning of land around villages. Also in keeping supermarkets size down has allowed our food prices to become the most expensive in Europe.

I am sure local planners made plenty of mistakes. But the main problem is local authourities have no way of raising funds except for levies on new construction. So the problem is with central government not with local government who have no chioce but to try and get construction levies by re-zoning more land.

The Raven.

Dob74 wrote: »

These planners called for high density housing and the re-zoning of land around villages. Also in keeping supermarkets size down has allowed our food prices to become the most expensive in Europe.

I am sure local planners made plenty of mistakes. But the main problem is local authourities have no way of raising funds except for levies on new construction. So the problem is with central government not with local government who have no chioce but to try and get construction levies by re-zoning more land.

The local authorities raise funds from levies on new construction, but they also have funding from central government, commercial rates, and goods and services.

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance/FileDownLoad,1129,en.xls

http://www.environ.ie/en/LocalGovernment/LocalGovernmentAdministration/LocalGovernmentFinance/FileDownLoad,1110,en.xls

However, the fault lies on both sides:

Essentially, a number of local authorities did not heeded good planning guidelines and regional and national objectives; sensible demographic profiling of potential demand; and the fact that much of the land zoned lacks essential services such as water and sewerage treatment plants, energy supply, public transport or roads. Instead, permissions and zoning have been facilitated by the abandonment of basic planning principles by elected representatives on the local and national stage and driven by the demands of local people, developers and speculators, and ambitious, localised growth plans framed within a zero-sum game of potentially being left behind with respect to development. [Emphasis added]

Further, central government not only failed to adequately oversee, regulate and direct local planning, but actively encouraged its excesses through tax incentive schemes and the flaunting of its own principles as set out in the National Spacial Strategy through policies such as decentralisation. [quoted from the NIRSA Report]

dean21

They should start with carrick on shannon
For year Farmers were told that they could only farm there land during certain time of the year to protect wildlife ect
Then the boom came and both leitrim and roscommon Co Co gave planning to build all over the same land.
Question have to be asked here as the planning was give on flood planes as hence carrick was under water last november

jmayo

Laminations wrote: »

jmayo, having some interaction with staff in NIRSA I know for a fact they do a lot more there than count houses. Regardless, what Rob Kitchin says about cronyism and the need for an inquiry is correct.

Care to enlighten the rest of us ?

Dob74 wrote: »

These planners called for high density housing and the re-zoning of land around villages. Also in keeping supermarkets size down has allowed our food prices to become the most expensive in Europe.

I am sure local planners made plenty of mistakes. But the main problem is local authourities have no way of raising funds except for levies on new construction. So the problem is with central government not with local government who have no chioce but to try and get construction levies by re-zoning more land.

One great example was how Dun Loaghaire-Rathdown gave go ahead for Dundrum because unlike the other Dublin councils it had no major shopping centre.
Also the way they screwed up in Sandyford is a complete joke.
Even for the number of apartments already built and in service the sewage sytem is not adequate.
How would it cope if all the hafl finsiehd ones were in service.
Nice to see the Primetime program the other night use both the Flemings 13 story megasekeleton and the masked off drapped Beacon South Quarter as examples of uncompleted property.

So much for the old mantra that all our over supply problems are due to bad planning in the likes of Roscommon\Leitrim . :rolleyes:

dean21 wrote: »

They should start with carrick on shannon
For year Farmers were told that they could only farm there land during certain time of the year to protect wildlife ect
Then the boom came and both leitrim and roscommon Co Co gave planning to build all over the same land.
Question have to be asked here as the planning was give on flood planes as hence carrick was under water last november

Ever notice how part of the Tesco shopping centre on the Dublin road is on stilts ?

SkepticOne

I have to disagree with the NIRSA when they say that one of the causes of the bubble was laissez-faire planning and rezoning policies. On page 36 of the report:

NIRSA report wrote:

Third, housing and planning policy, along with a weak and fragmented planning system, on the one hand encouraged development through tax incentives and the progrowth orientation of local authorities keen to leverage development levies, and on the other failed to integrate plans across scales and lacked sufficient checks and balances. Bartley (2007) argues that Ireland entered a third phase of planning from the mid-1980s onwards, with a shift from a managerial approach designed to facilitate modernization to an entrepreneurial approach designed to be more pragmatic and results-oriented, attracting inward investment and facilitating areal regeneration. This change in approach has led to piecemeal development and a planning system consisting of 88 local planning authorities: 29 County Councils, 5 County Borough Corporations, 5 Borough Corporations and 49 Town Councils (Grist, 2003).

Moreover, planning, spatial strategies, housing need, and tax incentive schemes were overseen by a range of agencies and were rarely considered contextually or as being interdependent. As a result, there has been a lack of joined-up thinking and action by housing, planning and development agencies at national and local levels, and an inability to respond strategically to demographic and economic pressures. This has been accompanied by a laissez-faire approach to planning, which held a presumption for development, forewent traditional planning tools such as greenbelts, and gave ready access to land, zoning and planning ermissions, along with little to no regulation concerning land purchases.

This does not make sense. I think the are confusing the after-effects of the bubble (oversupply, supply in the wrong areas, etc) with the bubble itself.

The effect of rampant development and laissez-faire regulation, where it occurred, would have been to increase supply, and this in turn would have had the effect of moderating prices. Strictly controlling supply would only have had the effect of exacerbating the bubble.

danbohan

jmayo wrote: »

Care to enlighten the rest of us ?



One great example was how Dun Loaghaire-Rathdown gave go ahead for Dundrum because unlike the other Dublin councils it had no major shopping centre.
Also the way they screwed up in Sandyford is a complete joke.
Even for the number of apartments already built and in service the sewage sytem is not adequate.
How would it cope if all the hafl finsiehd ones were in service.
Nice to see the Primetime program the other night use both the Flemings 13 story megasekeleton and the masked off drapped Beacon South Quarter as examples of uncompleted property.

So much for the old mantra that all our over supply problems are due to bad planning in the likes of Roscommon\Leitrim . :rolleyes:



Ever notice how part of the Tesco shopping centre on the Dublin road is on stilts ?

Ever notice how part of the Tesco shopping centre on the Dublin road is on stilts ?

yea intersting isnt it , wonder what other places allow supermarkets to be built on flood plains apart from venice maybe , of course the fact that the land tesco is built on was owned by a local politician would have nothing to do with the planning been granted !!!!!