44 new social housing units in Waterville, D15

MayBea

Does anyone know if this scheme is going ahead?
Friends of ours have purchased a new 3-bed house in Brandon Square, Waterville end of last year for €325K, as a part of 130 houses development. They were not informed about about such a high proportion of social housing in the estate and were expecting a usual 8%.
The houses were selling for €330K to €360K during the last release in August, are well made and energy efficient with solar panels.
Their main concern (among many other concerns) is could the value of their home decrease as a result? Any opinions please.

Eric Cartman

I have to say if I paid 300k + for a house and my neighbour got the same thing for effectively free Id be furious.

Aswell as lower property values there is a higher chance of antisocial behaviour. Id tell them to keep a close eye as its a slippery slope, 3 or 4 bad eggs in an estate can wreak havoc and make properties unsellable. The second something kicked off Id be putting the house back on the market and try to leave.

snubbleste

What 8% are you talking about?
Planning allows for 25% social housing in a development & the CoCo could have bought more

What opinions do your friends want to hear?

Lux23

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I have to say if I paid 300k + for a house and my neighbour got the same thing for effectively free Id be furious.

Aswell as lower property values there is a higher chance of antisocial behaviour. Id tell them to keep a close eye as its a slippery slope, 3 or 4 bad eggs in an estate can wreak havoc and make properties unsellable. The second something kicked off Id be putting the house back on the market and try to leave.

But the bag eggs might be private tenants over council tenants, I would rather the latter, at least you have someone to complain to.

MayBea

snubbleste wrote: »

What 8% are you talking about?
Planning allows for 25% social housing in a development & the CoCo could have bought more

What opinions do your friends want to hear?

Thanks, I am repeating what was said to me on the 8% part. Does 25% portion rule applies to Fingal County Councli?
I can't seem to find anything on statistics, the only mention I came across was "A revision of the legislation, makes it mandatory for developers to set aside up to 10 per cent of new developments for social use, according to Government sources.", Irish Times.
I guess they look for advice whether they can object the scheme. Their main concern is the value of their home, could it devalue?

MayBea

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I have to say if I paid 300k + for a house and my neighbour got the same thing for effectively free Id be furious.

As well as lower property values there is a higher chance of antisocial behaviour. Id tell them to keep a close eye as its a slippery slope, 3 or 4 bad eggs in an estate can wreak havoc and make properties unsellable. The second something kicked off Id be putting the house back on the market and try to leave.

They are both working full time commuting to city center with kids (pre-schoolers) in private childcare, so it did took them years to save up for deposit. Do you think the house could drop in price? Leaving them unable to relocate.

the_syco

Lux23 wrote: »

But the bag eggs might be private tenants over council tenants, I would rather the latter, at least you have someone to complain to.

Unless there is somewhere to move them to, the latter wouldn't be moved. Also, other authorities may not want them. The former may move if threatened with financial penalties.

athtrasna

Thread already in the Dublin 15 forum about this.

Eric Cartman

MayBea wrote: »

They are both working full time commuting to city centre with kids (pre-schoolers) in private childcare, so it did took them years to save up for deposit. Do you think the house could drop in price? Leaving them unable to relocate.

It could drop in price, but the price of a house is irrelevant until you try and sell it. I would stay if the area remains as it is, but if it starts having antisocial problems, especially for the kids sake id leave.

Lux23 wrote: »

But the bag eggs might be private tenants over council tenants, I would rather the latter, at least you have someone to complain to.

private renters I've seen problems with , but then you have the PRTB and landlord to complain to. Owner occupiers , aside from leaving gardens a bit unkept or not painting the house in their later years, I have not ever seen an example of this. Something about actually having to pay for your own house makes people appreciate it more.

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Aswell as lower property values there is a higher chance of antisocial behaviour

Do you have experience of this? The social tenants where I live cause absolutely no problems.

Social engineering is achieved through Part 5 of the Planning & Development Act where a maximum of 20% of new build is allocated for social and affordable housing.

The alternative is to build large scale developments with single social tenure. This has proved problematic in the past.

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Eric Cartman

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

Do you have experience of this? The social tenants where I live cause absolutely no problems.

Social engineering is achieved through Part 5 of the Planning & Development Act where a maximum of 20% of new build is allocated for social and affordable housing.

The alternative is to build large scale developments with single social tenure. This has proved problematic in the past.

I'm sure they are.Nobody is saying every social tenant is a problem, but they do cause more problems than owner occupiers and private tenants. Somebody who pays a mortgage and goes to work every day and has to budget their finances etc… simply just doesn't have the hours in the day to cause trouble, in a house where you have 2 incomes and children this applies even more. Even in single income households with kids , the carer doesn't have the time to engage in antisocial activity.

single professionals with no kids can cause some disturbance, usually at weekends, and normally are fairly on the ball and a good talking sorts it.

groups of students can be bad also usually at night but all week as opposed to weekends, but they aren't owners so a call to the landlord sorts it most of the time.

RA tenants and people in council accommodation have a lot of free time, almost no responsibilities and its very hard to have them removed. If a landlord rents to RA tenants, chances are they aren't that precious about their property anyway. the sheer boredom of doing nothing all day every day, combined with higher incidents of drug and alcohol abuse, and almost nobody to answer to creates the perfect conditions for antisocial behaviour and criminality to fester. yet again ill say it doesn't happen all the time , but you show me a house where the gardai have to be called every day / month / week by neighbours and I will 100% guarantee they're knocking on the door looking for somebody in receipt of state benefits.

Mrs OBumble

Heisenberg. wrote: »

Or they offer people social houses outside of Dublin where the demand isn't as high.

But that's very little use to low paid workers (who are eligible for social housing, BTW) who have jobs in Dublin.

Lux23

What if you live next door to a scumbag who owns his house? There was a man on my street growing up who terrorised his wife and kids with weekly beatings. It went on for years! You just never know.

I personally think a mix of social and privately owned housing is the way to go, I grew up in a council house in a private estate myself and I doubt anyone would really know the difference between us and the private owners.

MayBea

Roger Mellie Man on the Telly wrote: »

The alternative is to build large scale developments with single social tenure. This has proved problematic in the past.

Yet the council allows for this large development taking place.
Th houses are quite expensive for the area, as far as I understand, and instead of spending scarce taxpayer's resources on buying 44 houses, each worth €350,000 the council could've reduced the scale to 20 and put the remaining 25 houses on the market. Using the the proceeds of the this sale to buy twice as much houses in cheaper areas.

April 73

I can see why doing a large purchase like this suits the council (and probably suits the developer too). It cuts down on the workload involved in buying 44 separate houses, including the conveyancing & solicitor costs. The developer may even have given a discount for the number of properties bought.

A quick search on Myhome for houses in Dublin 15 shows loads of properties between €150k & €300k, so the council would want to make a significant saving on the bulk purchase to have saved money overall.

Although there may be a saving on upkeep & maintenance too by buying new builds rather than older properties. There is an argument that the council will maintain these houses well & that if a similar percentage were to be bought by private landlords who may or may not care about the place or the tenants, it could be more detrimental to the area. Having a large number of rental properties in a development can cause problems.

In any new development there can be questions asked about how it will develop & mature. Twice I have bought new build houses - one in Dublin 15 actually & key to the community has been how involved people are & how much they care about where they live. I don't think that divides along social & private lines. It comes down to individuals.

MayBea

Lux23 wrote: »

That's not what is bothering you though, you just don't want to live next to council tenants.

As everyone else, the couple in question are hoping for perfectly well behaved, polite and friendly neighbours. And as previous poster said that doesn't divide along social & private lines.
The question here was that the owners fear that their property value will decline.
And yes I expect the council to make smart decisions as to where and how my taxes are spent.

Cuddlesworth

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I have to say if I paid 300k + for a house and my neighbour got the same thing for effectively free Id be furious.

If you paid 300k for a new house, up to 20%(60K) of that is directly towards the social housing in the same estate. I'd say it's more of a kick in the teeth knowing that you paid for the house.

K_P

MayBea wrote: »

Yet the council allows for this large development taking place.
Th houses are quite expensive for the area, as far as I understand, and instead of spending scarce taxpayer's resources on buying 44 houses, each worth €350,000 the council could've reduced the scale to 20 and put the remaining 25 houses on the market. Using the the proceeds of the this sale to buy twice as much houses in cheaper areas.

In doing so they would be concentrating social housing in already more disadvantaged areas and continuing to create the social housing ghettos that were disastrous in the past. That goes against government's housing policy and isn't something that's likely to happen again on any large scale.

There is simply no way of knowing how this will play out but from my experience, it tends to follow a fairly standard pattern:
1. Social housing rumoured - residents are terrified
2. Social housing tenants move in - residents are angry
3. Panic and turmoil for a few months as every dog bark, loud child, teenager in a hoodie is identified as anti social and blamed on the new tenants.
4. Everything calms the hell down again and everything carries on as it did before step 1.

In relation to whether your friends can challenge this development based on their property devaluing - probably not. The state's role in housing is not to uphold and protect the property values of home owners, it is to support and provide for those who cannot do so through their own means. You have no inalienable right to the value of your home and good luck trying to objectively prove that social housing will reduce property values.

And now, at the risk of being accused of being a bleeding heart liberal, here's one of the families that have been allocated a house: http://utv.ie/News/2015/11/16/Family-given-social-housing-cant-wait-for-Christmas-48965

They've been homeless since January, living in one room of a B&B. You'll forgive me if I don't have too much sympathy for property values in comparison.

Mrs OBumble

April 73 wrote: »

I can see why doing a large purchase like this suits the council (and probably suits the developer too). It cuts down on the workload involved in buying 44 separate houses, including the conveyancing & solicitor costs. The developer may even have given a discount for the number of properties bought.

There are also substantial savings on on-going maintenance.

Eg one contract for an annual service for 44 boilers in houses of similar design and construction costs a good deal less than 44 individual contract, or even one contract for 44 services in different designs and locations.

athtrasna

Folks this is not a general social housing thread. The OP asked a specific question about a specific development. Let's not get side tracked on the greater issue.

Dr_Colossus

MayBea wrote: »

Does anyone know if this scheme is going ahead?
Friends of ours have purchased a new 3-bed house in Brandon Square, Waterville end of last year for €325K, as a part of 130 houses development. They were not informed about about such a high proportion of social housing in the estate and were expecting a usual 8%.
The houses were selling for €330K to €360K during the last release in August, are well made and energy efficient with solar panels.
Their main concern (among many other concerns) is could the value of their home decrease as a result? Any opinions please.

I viewed these houses earlier this year as a first time buyer and potential owner/occupier. One of the first questions I asked the developer at the open viewing was what were the estate plans for social housing given the state is usually allocated a minimum 10% of the dwellings.
The response I received was that the estate planning was obtained prior to any social housing legistation and instead of allocating individual houses the developer had instead covered his requirement with a cash settlement with the respecive council. As such I was informed there would be no social housing or at least not a high concentration of social housing in the estate.

All aparent lies now given the above and a very high concentation of 44/130 (33.8%) social housing. The houses were well designed, built and finished but where's the justice in saving and working for years to buy and eventually own your home for someone else to move in next door without doing a hand's turn for it. Yet again the welfare state to the rescue at the determinant of the hard working tax payer.

From my questions from the open viewing I learned this estate was going to be covered with rather expensive yearly management fees, is the council going to pay these also for their social housing dwellers?
I would consiider the news of such high levels of social housing in this new and until now attrative estate a serious blow to the properties' valuations and likely make future sales less attractive.

MayBea

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

From my questions from the open viewing I learned this estate was going to be covered with rather expensive yearly management fees, is the council going to pay these also for their social housing dwellers?
I would consiider the news of such high levels of social housing in this new and until now attractive estate a serious blow to the properties' valuations and likely make future sales less attractive.

Thanks for the well-articulated response. It is disappointing the misleading facts about social housing in the estate were given to the buyers, clearly to achieve a higher price for the units.

I think the management fee has to be high to compensate for the social housing where there is no management fee. I'm not sure if it's paid by the local authority.

April 73

The local authority as owner of the property is liable for their share of the management fees per unit. Private owners will not be subsidising the social houses for the management fee.
I'm a former director of a management company & have seen payment made by the local authority.

Mrs OBumble

MayBea wrote: »

I think the management fee has to be high to compensate for the social housing where there is no management fee. I'm not sure if it's paid by the local authority.

Where do you get that idea from?

AFAIK, the management fee will be paid by the owner - which will be the council in this case. They will also have 44 votes that management company meetings, just like any other BTL LL who owns a house in the estate.

MayBea

K_P wrote: »

In relation to whether your friends can challenge this development based on their property devaluing - probably not...

And now, at the risk of being accused of being a bleeding heart liberal, here's one of the families that have been allocated a house: http://utv.ie/News/2015/11/16/Family-given-social-housing-cant-wait-for-Christmas-48965

I saw this article, K_P, this is a lovely family, great to see smiling faces.
This is why the council could have made Christmas merrier for more families, by selling some units and using the proceeds buying another 20 houses here and another 20 there - a brand new houses in a private estates, instead of concentrating 44 council units in one place.
My question was not about whether they can object based on "property devaluing", I am trying to gather the views on this situation. Would general opinion be that it will devalue for certain or it this won't cause any major effects on property value.

MayBea

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where do you get that idea from?

AFAIK, the management fee will be paid by the owner - which will be the council in this case. They will also have 44 votes that management company meetings, just like any other BTL LL who owns a house in the estate.

This was my assumption, it is great to know the local authority will cover the fees.

athtrasna

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Where do you get that idea from?

AFAIK, the management fee will be paid by the owner - which will be the council in this case. They will also have 44 votes that management company meetings, just like any other BTL LL who owns a house in the estate.

No they won't. They'll have one vote.

April 73

My opinion would be that having 44 social housing units will not necessarily devalue property in & of itself.

How the development "develops" will have some bearing on house values. Will it be seen as a good place to live, close to amenities, with a well run management company? Then values will look after themselves.

There are no guarantees in life. Where I lived previously was in a small cul-de-sac of 7 houses. By the time I moved & sold to an owner occupier, 2 of those 7 houses were being rented out. If anyone troublesome had moved into any one of the 7 houses (renter or owner) it could potentially have had a detrimental effect on the cul-de-sac.

Your friends are obviously concerned though. What stage of the buying process are they at?

I don't necessarily think the agents misled buyers over the number of social units. The council weren't allocated 44 units, it is choosing to buy them. That's two different things at two different points in time.

Don't forget that social housing can also be rented to working people who qualify on income levels to have a reduced rent (relative to what they would pay in the private market). Surely people who are working & paying their way are not undesirables? Or are people who are housed in social housing & maybe not working undesirables? Or any more likely to lower the value of housing stock around them?

This isn't an isolated development set in field somewhere. It's surrounded by other developments & estates in the area providing a social mix. Dublin 15 is already a mixed bag of housing. I don't think that having 44 social units in this particular development in the context of the area as a whole, is going to mean a big neon "keep away" finger pointing at it.

Dr_Colossus

MayBea wrote: »

I saw this article, K_P, this is a lovely family, great to see smiling faces.
This is why the council could have made Christmas merrier for more families, by selling some units and using the proceeds buying another 20 houses brand new houses in a private estates, instead of concentrating 44 council units in one place.

selling some units? The council bought the 44 houses for a total cost of €13m (avg of €295k each) but I agree for the same €13m they could have bought many more much houses elsewhere and spread the social housing amoung different estates around the capital rather than concentrating them in one and devaluing it as a whole. Houses being bought by the hard pressed private home owner for €330k to €360k have already been devalvued in my eyes to the average council price of €295k.

These are quite high end modern houses with good floor space which raises the question why should social housing families (lovely or not) be entitled to separate rooms for their kids which the working class family can't afford? If I was handed a €300k house I too would feel like I won the lotto as for the working family that €300k equates to €450k over a 25 year mortgage term which in turn equates to €900k gross earnings, lotto figures indeed.

April 73

Except that the person paying the mortgage on the property owns it at the end of the mortgage. They are left with an asset.
The person renting it from the council will never own the property.

Mrs OBumble

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

These are quite high end modern houses with good floor space which raises the question why should social housing families (lovely or not) be entitled to separate rooms for their kids which the working class family can't afford?

Because the rules about what is acceptable housing say that children beyond a certain age should not be sharing a bedroom with an opposite gender sibling.

Also, most working class families in Dublin do qualify for social housing. It's the squeezed middle class ones who don't.

K_P

MayBea wrote: »

I saw this article, K_P, this is a lovely family, great to see smiling faces.
This is why the council could have made Christmas merrier for more families, by selling some units and using the proceeds buying another 20 houses here and another 20 there - a brand new houses in a private estates, instead of concentrating 44 council units in one place.

Look MayBea, we differ on this issue but you're asking a question I know a lot of people would be asking in the same situation. But please don't be so disingenuous as to say your concern is around value for money and how the council could have "made Christmas merrier for more families" by conveniently developing and buying housing away from this estate. Government policy on social housing is that it will be mixed tenure for the foreseeable future. That includes expensive high end estates. If you genuinely have an issue with that, express your concerns next time there's a public consultation on housing policy. Not just when it affects you.

I'll admit I'm biased as my work involves social housing. But I see this argument all the time. Snobbery and fear disguised as concern for the disadvantaged:
- I've nothing at all against this person with mental health support needs being housed next to me. But the services here are terrible and he wouldn't get the support he needs.
- I'm sure they're a lovely family but they just wouldn't fit in here, some other neighbours wouldn't accept them.
- Wouldn't it be better for these families to be housed in XYZ nearer their families, they won't know anyone here, won't they be lonely?!

MayBea wrote: »

My question was not about whether they can object based on "property devaluing"

MayBea wrote: »

I guess they look for advice whether they can object the scheme. Their main concern is the value of their home, could it devalue?

Seriously now, get your story straight.

What it comes down to is that it's hard to present the anti social scroungers argument or fear about property devaluing when faced with that news story and pictures of delighted homeless children being given a home. But those are the kinds of people and families who will be housed in this estate. Chances are the properties will be well managed and the council will be on high alert for any trouble as I'm sure they're aware how controversial this is with the community. Your friends will know who to complain to if there are any issues which is something they wouldn't if the house was owner occupied or possibly if it was privately rented.

There's no way of knowing if it will affect property values, you'll have to see how it all pans out once all the units are allocated and things settle down. From experience, my feeling is that it will have no effect on your friends' property or quality of life.

Azrel

April 73 wrote: »

The person renting it from the council will never own the property.

You could be wrong there, (as has happened before in a lot of ex-council estates in Dublin) some short-sighted future government could decide to buy a few hundred thousand votes by thinking it's a good idea to "sell" the tenants the council houses they are living in at a knock down price.

April 73

Azrel wrote: »

You could be wrong there, (as has happened before in a lot of ex-council estates in Dublin) some short-sighted future government could decide to buy a few hundred thousand votes by thinking it's a good idea to "sell" the tenants the council houses they are living in at a knock down price.

Yes you're right actually. It has happened in the past.

PolaroidPizza

buying a house is no different to buying shares or a racehorse, you have to take the risk the value can go down as well as up. if your friends are so seriously worried about the value going down, then they shouldn't have gone buying a house in the first place.
buying a house doesn't entitle you to any say in what the council does with your neighbours. buying a house is an investment, nothing more. if the value goes up, then good for you, if it goes down and you're in trouble, then you really should have been smarter about where you invested.

MayBea

K_P wrote: »

There's no way of knowing if it will affect property values, you'll have to see how it all pans out once all the units are allocated and things settle down. From experience, my feeling is that it will have no effect on your friends' property or quality of life.

Thanks for the last paragraph, K_P. The question was and is about property value.
Again, the statement "My question was not about whether they can object based on "property devaluing" and emphases the "based on property value" part. There were no ambiguity on "object" part, the family in question will object, based on percentile.
I don't understand the accusations of my being untruthful part?
Overall, the rest is a blob of emotions, probably caused by your occupation (look up professional deformation on wikipedia).

colm_mcm

April 73 wrote: »

Except that the person paying the mortgage on the property owns it at the end of the mortgage. They are left with an asset.
The person renting it from the council will never own the property.

So you can look forward to not paying a €1200 mortgage in a few decades time.

Mrs OBumble

athtrasna wrote: »

No they won't. They'll have one vote.

Section 15 of the Multi-Units Developement Act 2011 suggests otherwise. It says (bolding mine)

"one vote shall attach to each residential unit in the multi-unit development to which the owners’ management company relate"

Ref: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/enacted/en/pdf

K_P

MayBea wrote: »

Overall, the rest is a blob of emotions, probably caused by your occupation (look up professional deformation on wikipedia).

I'm grand for the condescending referrals to the Wikipedia, thanks. :rolleyes: I'm the one who said "I'll admit I'm biased as my work involves social housing." So of course I have a more positive view of social housing than the average person who hears and sees nothing of it but the horror stories they hear about on Liveline. But I also know a hell of a lot more about it beyond the fear and scaremongering.

I'll tell you again, your friends cannot object based on the possibility of their property devaluing. That's just a non-runner. Maybe the value will drop, but you cannot prove it's the result of the social housing in the area, especially with house prices and the housing market in such a volatile state. Even if you could, that has no legal standing whatsoever. No one has the right to have their property value remain at the same rate at which they bought it.

As regards the proportion of social housing, someone else on the thread mentioned s/he was told the developer had paid money to the council in lieu of their Part V (social and affordable housing) requirements. This might have been an out and out lie on the part of the estate agent, or it might have been correct. The council may have bought them directly from the developer completely independently of the Part V process.

If the estate agent was lying maybe they could take a case against them for damages. To do so, that brings us back to being able to prove a property has devalued because of social housing. They could claim the house was sold to them under false pretences. I'm not a solicitor so I've no idea how this would go but it seems like a massive and expensive headache.

I've come across objections to social housing when it's in the planning stage - some objections are successful, some are not. Of course your friends can object to the council now, but as the houses have already been built and bought, it looks like it's a done deal. Their objection is therefore likely to end up being no more than a strongly worded letter of complaint so I don't fancy their chances of succeeding.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Section 15 of the Multi-Units Developement Act 2011 suggests otherwise. It says (bolding mine)


Ref: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/enacted/en/pdf

My understanding is that this is correct. The council will have 44 votes on the Owners Management Company.

April 73

colm_mcm wrote: »

So you can look forward to not paying a €1200 mortgage in a few decades time.

I don't understand the point? Yes, it's expensive to purchase your own house, but you own something at the end of it.
Alternatively you can pay rent all your life. It's a free choice.

athtrasna

Mod note K_P and Maybea please familiarise yourselves with the A&P charter before posting again on this forum. Attack the post not the poster.

athtrasna

Dr_Colossus wrote: »

All aparent lies now given the above and a very high concentation of 44/130 (33.8%) social housing.

Rossan Court is a stand alone cluster of 44 houses, all purchased by the council, according to an email I've seen from the county manager. Making it 100% social housing.

The exact quote from the email that was shared with me:

I confirm that Fingal County Council have recently purchased the entire 44 units housing development at Rossan Court