Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

seamus

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1019/825318-airbnb-temple-bar/

TL;DR:

- Dublin City Council held the owners of an apartment in breach of planning regulations for using AirBnB for letting out their apartment
- Owners appealed to ABP
- ABP upheld the DCC ruling
- Owners must now apply for change-of-use permission from residential to short-term holiday letting

It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

Michael D Not Higgins

Excellent news, I'm just wondering how are they going to enforce it on the large scale.

bittihuduga

yes - heard that on the radio news

Sharktopus

Excellent news. Let's hope that the powers that be now see fit to introduce legislation similar to Berlin to win back some properties for residential use. Airbnb is the elephant in the room for Dublin's rental market- it's crazy that a significant portion of the stock is being siphoned off for commercial use while we are scrambling to build additional units

maximum12

This also benefits other owners or lessees in developments who didn't sign up to live in a guest house.

Gumbo

Renember,Planning Enforcement will only get involved in foot of a valid complaint. So if this is happening, people need to report it if they feel fit to.

4ensic15

The City Council have no interest in enforcing this. Their spokesman was denying there was any planning issue when it was raised with them. Because there is no physical change, it must be established that their has been a change of user. Not easy to get evidence of this to support an application to the courts.

Gatling

4ensic15 wrote: »

The City Council have no interest in enforcing this. Their spokesman was denying there was any planning issue when it was raised with them. Because there is no physical change, it must be established that their has been a change of user. Not easy to get evidence of this to support an application to the courts.

Photos ,CCTV and likely witness statements all easy enough these days .
Add someone would obviously have to advertise the properties,quick search on the oul interwebs easy enough to find an actual listing

Baby01032012

Gatling wrote: »

Photos ,CCTV and likely witness statements all easy enough these days .
Add someone would obviously have to advertise the properties,quick search on the oul interwebs easy enough to find an actual listing

Unlikely CCTV in corridors, at hall door yes but they could be going to any apartment. Who's going to stand outside with a camera. Re: advertise - Airbnb adds do not give addresses, it shows point on a map, hard to disciper street never mind apartment/block.

newacc2015

Sharktopus wrote: »

Excellent news. Let's hope that the powers that be now see fit to introduce legislation similar to Berlin to win back some properties for residential use. Airbnb is the elephant in the room for Dublin's rental market- it's crazy that a significant portion of the stock is being siphoned off for commercial use while we are scrambling to build additional units

Someone did the stats on this in May and found out only around 1,500 whole houses/apartments were actually on it. 1,500 units in a city of well over a million people is not "significant". It is actually tiny. I imagine DCC banning bedsits is significantly higher than 1500 unit.

http://www.dublininquirer.com/2016/05/17/does-airbnb-mean-there-are-fewer-homes-to-rent-in-dublin/

Banning Airbnbs is a quick fix and a dangerous one at that. This is what most residents of Berlin will tell you too. Berlin like Dublin has a massive housing shortage. Not enough apartments are being built to meet demand for housing. The Berlin authorities know this and are ignoring it (sounds very similar to Dublin) and have decided to ban Airbnb to increase housing demand. It looks great on paper until you realise it isnt going to address the massive shortage now and in the future. What Berlin needs like Dublin is more housing to be built.

The Government is not "scrambling to build units". It is making hardly any effort to build any social housing. A fair amount of new apartments in the city are being purpose built for short-term lets as you dont have to worry about contributing to social housing. Airbnb wouldnt be so popular in Dublin if hotels werent such a rip off. But there is a massive shortage of hotel rooms, that isnt going to be dealt with anything soon.

Gatling

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Unlikely CCTV in corridors, at hall door yes but they could be going to any apartment. Who's going to stand outside with a camera. Re: advertise - Airbnb adds do not give addresses, it shows point on a map, hard to disciper street never mind apartment/block.

Yeah but a customer is supplied with a an address though,
CCTV can be installed anywhere for investigations especially if a concerned neighbour/s makes a complaint

dudara

Removing AirBnb will put visitors back into the hotel market which is already stretched in Dublin. Room rates will rise and possibly deter tourism and business.

For every up, there's a down.

Baby01032012

Gatling wrote: »

Yeah but a customer is supplied with a an address though,
CCTV can be installed anywhere for investigations especially if a concerned neighbour/s makes a complaint

Customer is...so DCC hire a PI to pretend to be a Airbnb guest to then get proof of address....I see..I'm sure they can't wait to implement this.

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

Photos ,CCTV and likely witness statements all easy enough these days .
Add someone would obviously have to advertise the properties,quick search on the oul interwebs easy enough to find an actual listing

That only gives a lead. That wouldn't be enough for a court. The owner would have to be served with a warning notice first. It would then have to be shown that the owner hadn't stopped. Potential guests would be given a different address and sent to a pick up point to get the keys. DCC have no intention of trying to book accommodation in Dublin and going into a unit to gather evidence.

hytrogen

dudara wrote:

Removing AirBnb will put visitors back into the hotel market which is already stretched in Dublin. Room rates will rise and possibly deter tourism and business.

Back to couchsurfing so

hytrogen

seamus wrote:

- Dublin City Council held the owners of an apartment in breach of planning regulations for using AirBnB for letting out their apartment - Owners appealed to ABP - ABP upheld the DCC ruling - Owners must now apply for change-of-use permission from residential to short-term holiday letting

seamus wrote:

It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

I think this all sets a very bad precedence legally, especially for home owners who take lodgers and use airbnb to advertise their availabilities.

**sweeping statements alert**
While I appreciate regulation for crooks who stuff tenants into apartments 10 to a room or throw a blind eye to allow leaseholders to sublet a room and carryout the same, (which in my view is what actually happens and landlords get the rot end of it in the media now! Check out rent rooms groups on facetube its all leaseholders subletting) airbnb, for many, is an alternative means to advertising that a person has a room to let out short term which can be very advantageous for international business visitors. I do agree that it definitely shouldn't be for long term leases but with this action we start the walk down that dark path noone wants to go..

Gatling

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Customer is...so DCC hire a PI to pretend to be a Airbnb guest to then get proof of address....I see..I'm sure they can't wait to implement this.

Only takes a simple phone call no need for PI's at all

4ensic15

Gatling wrote: »

Only takes a simple phone call no need for PI's at all

1. How is a phone call going to get the address?
What good is getting an address?
How does that mean DCC can stop it at that address?

seamus

hytrogen wrote: »

I think this all sets a very bad precedence legally, especially for home owners who take lodgers and use airbnb to advertise their availabilities.

It doesn't affect them though. It's pretty clear that this only applies where the property is being used for holiday (i.e. short-term, no-tenancy) rentals. And this is because such activity is a commercial activity.

People who occupy the property themselves for a majority of the year would be exempt from this provided that they have less then 5 bedrooms for guest use. As this is considered a residential use of the property.

It's becoming more and more of a problem in the city centre as landlords realise they can make a years' worth of rental income in six months using AirBnB and they don't even have to abide by any of the PRTB rules. Which puts additional pressure on the city's housing crisis.

hytrogen

seamus wrote:

People who occupy the property themselves for a majority of the year would be exempt from this provided that they have less then 5 bedrooms for guest use. As this is considered a residential use of the property.

Agreed, however there are the minority tenants who run a business out of subleasing rooms to quite an excessive and unsafe density, ie flavellas or slumlike conditions, in town that are clearly getting away with it which should be stopped for health and safety reasons.

seamus wrote:

It's becoming more and more of a problem in the city centre as landlords realise they can make a years' worth of rental income in six months using AirBnB and they don't even have to abide by any of the PRTB rules. Which puts additional pressure on the city's housing crisis.

Also agreed but why cut the hand that feeds the mouth? And they've been sought to, after another recent case, to pay tax appropriately on those earnings which, in turn, should mean greater revenue for the exchequer.

testaccount123

4ensic15 wrote: »

1. How is a phone call going to get the address?
What good is getting an address?
How does that mean DCC can stop it at that address?

What on earth are you talking about?

Graham

hytrogen wrote: »

but why cut the hand that feeds the mouth? And they've been sought to, after another recent case, to pay tax appropriately on those earnings which, in turn, should mean greater revenue for the exchequer.

1) other long-term residents didn't sign-up to live in a holiday village
2) it removes long-term housing stock from the market

hytrogen

Graham wrote:

1) other long-term residents didn't sign-up to live in a holiday village 2) it removes long-term housing stock from the market

1) Agreed. That's what the likes of Trabolgan are for and it shouldn't be abused by the likes private landlords or subletting tenants. Then again life should be a holiday
2) somewhat disagree in that it still provides an alternative service for short stay visitors while alleviating and competing with the hoteliers market. Again because someone's taken the risk to diverge their business they shouldn't be demonized for exploring those opportunities. It keeps the market flexible which, I hope you'll agree, it certainly needs.
Security of long term tenure is indeed vital for all tenants.
Long term housing stock is set to come from intensifying the density levels around the city as one component according to the new government overall housing plan.

Graham

hytrogen wrote: »

2) somewhat disagree in that it still provides an alternative service for short stay visitors

That wasn't it's purpose, it wasn't the basis on which planning was granted and to be honest I don't think we should prioritise tourists saving a few quid on weekend break accommodation over providing housing for the local population.

Investors are free to diversify into holiday accommodation via any number of alternative (legitimate) channels.

maximum12

Spencer Dock (600 units) have banned people subletting on Air BnB. Sounds like it was having significant impact on residents with the common areas being described as being like a hotel lobby and significant extra traffic with cleaners coming and going.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/blanket-airbnb-ban-placed-on-dublin-apartment-complex-1.2836859

Alkers

seamus wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1019/825318-airbnb-temple-bar/


It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

That last bit is apparently not correct:
The council’s Deputy Planning Officer said that yesterday’s decision by An Bord Pleanála does not set a precedent.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, Mary Conway said that each Section 5 application is site specific so "one ruling does not necessarily apply across the board".

From:http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1020/825490-dublin-airbnb/

Graham

Simona1986 wrote: »

That last bit is apparently not correct:
The council’s Deputy Planning Officer said that yesterday’s decision by An Bord Pleanála does not set a precedent.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Morning Ireland, Mary Conway said that each Section 5 application is site specific so "one ruling does not necessarily apply across the board".

From:http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1020/825490-dublin-airbnb/

It would be hard to argue any similar case would result in a different conclusion though and as the Spencer Dock letters demonstrate, management companies are starting to take matters in hand without the intervention of the planning departments.

jd

maximum12 wrote: »

Spencer Dock (600 units) have banned people subletting on Air BnB. Sounds like it was having significant impact on residents with the common areas being described as being like a hotel lobby and significant extra traffic with cleaners coming and going.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/blanket-airbnb-ban-placed-on-dublin-apartment-complex-1.2836859

I think it is this case discussed here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057655411

beauf

seamus wrote: »

...
It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

Thus far almost every action to impose regulation or better standards has reduced the amount of rentals available to tenants.

I would expect the same with this. It's main effect imo will to protect adjoining residents. Which is needed.

Is there any meaningful govt action on the supply shortage??

daithi7

beauf wrote: »

Thus far almost every action to impose regulation or better standards has reduced the amount of rentals available to tenants.

I would expect the same with this. It's main effect imo will to protect adjoining residents. Which is needed.

Is there any meaningful govt action on the supply shortage??

Loads in fairness: I.e.
Direct social housing builds and rapid builds
Reintroducing the first time buyer's grant
Allowing the tax credit to be used as part of the deposit
Increasing the rent a room allowance
Etc, etc etc

beauf

This crisis has been going n on for years. They announced that only the other day.

Itv will be interesting to see if this ruling has any effect on AirB

4ensic15

daithi7 wrote: »

Loads in fairness: I.e.
Direct social housing builds and rapid builds
Reintroducing the first time buyer's grant
Allowing the tax credit to be used as part of the deposit
Increasing the rent a room allowance
Etc, etc etc

I wouldn't call that loads.
There are pathetically few social housing and rapid builds (which are anything but rapid to build) under way. Nowhere near enough to stop the problem getting worse.
First time buyers grant will do very little for supply. It is not going to get more house up or get them up any faster.
tax credit for deposit, likewise.
Rent a room allowance will put few if any extra rooms on the market. It is more likely that owners will take the opportunity to charge their house mates more.
All of this is scratching at the surface of the problem. In a scenario where 25,000 units are needed annually and output is around half that, these "measures" are pathetic.

sondagefaux

Baby01032012 wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

Photos ,CCTV and likely witness statements all easy enough these days .
Add someone would obviously have to advertise the properties,quick search on the oul interwebs easy enough to find an actual listing

Unlikely CCTV in corridors, at hall door yes but they could be going to any apartment. Who's going to stand outside with a camera. Re: advertise - Airbnb adds do not give addresses, it shows point on a map, hard to disciper street never mind apartment/block.

Make a fake booking on Airbnb and ask a few questions about availability, precise location within block etc...

sondagefaux

4ensic15 wrote: »

Gatling wrote: »

Only takes a simple phone call no need for PI's at all

1. How is a phone call going to get the address?
What good is getting an address?
How does that mean DCC can stop it at that address?

You phone the person advertising the place to let and ask them for the address.. Which is useful so you can inform Dublin City Council that you suspect that the owner at that address is not living there and is renting it out full-time on Airbnb. DCC can investigate and, if your suspicions are correct, take planning enforcement action which could include requiring the property owner to apply for planning permission for change of use from residential to commercial. Obviously planning permission isn't guaranteed as objections can be lodged. Does that answer your questions?

imitation

Time for the silicon valley lads to move onto a new thing to "disrupt". People in Hotels, taxis, food delivery have all taken a knock from people looking to earn pokcet money on the side and multinationals skimming a healthy chunk off the top. Its all fantastic until you realise its another career type job thats been made redundant.

4ensic15

sondagefaux wrote: »

You phone the person advertising the place to let and ask them for the address.. Which is useful so you can inform Dublin City Council that you suspect that the owner at that address is not living there and is renting it out full-time on Airbnb. DCC can investigate and, if your suspicions are correct, take planning enforcement action which could include requiring the property owner to apply for planning permission for change of use from residential to commercial. Obviously planning permission isn't guaranteed as objections can be lodged. Does that answer your questions?

That is not how it works. Initial contact is made by e-mail and the owner must accept or reject. The owner will give a non existent address in the vicinity. I know one owner who always puts fake numbers on DAFT. He puts No 31 in a street with 30 houses. When someone wants to go there they will be met at a different location and escorted to the correct address.
DCC will not be in any hurry to react to attempted internet bookings. That is not evidence for a court case. DCC would want about 4 witness statements from neighbours, proof of who the owner is, CCTV footage of guests and evidence that the owner lives somewhere else.
DCC have to serve a notice on the current owner and them come back and see if he has complied. DCC does not have the interest or the resources to try and close down Airbnb s. If they are contacted about non-existent addresses they will give up even sooner.

Graham

It does look like DCC are going to try and bury their heads for as long as possible.

If I were betting, I'd be looking at the property management companies having the largest/fastest effect.

Graham

Graham wrote: »

It does look like DCC are going to try and bury their heads for as long as possible.

If I were betting, I'd be looking at the property management companies having the largest/fastest effect.

Yes, this decision would be a nightmare to enforce so that is why DCC are not enthusiastic - there are better uses for our tax euros. However this decision will act as an important backstop and support for management companies who have decided to limit short term lets in their properties.

beauf

Hotels also have a shortage

http://www.thejournal.ie/hotels-occupancy-dublin-2-3038232-Oct2016/

seamus

beauf wrote: »

This crisis has been going n on for years. They announced that only the other day.

Property takes years to build. There is no realistic way any government can snap their fingers and solve a housing shortage in a week, or even a year.

Even the so-called "rapid build" houses will take a year to finish the whole lot of them.

Houses are labour and time intensive, you can't just throw up big wooden boxes for people to live in. Well you can, but you'll be rebuilding them ten years later and dealing with all sorts of issues in the interim.

We're still 3-5 years away from any appreciable easing off of the housing shortage.

Graham

Deleted User wrote: »

However this decision will act as an important backstop and support for management companies who have decided to limit short term lets in their properties.

My thoughts exactly.

I wouldn't be surprised to see AirBnB take action either. In other jurisdictions they've had large scale purges of properties starting with commercial operators. If I remember correctly, New York is one example where they also make a register of properties/landlords available to the relevant authorities.

hytrogen

Graham wrote:

I wouldn't be surprised to see AirBnB take action either. In other jurisdictions they've had large scale purges of properties starting with commercial operators. If I remember correctly, New York is one example where they also make a register of properties/landlords available to the relevant authorities.

They're being 'evicted' from New York according to an article in the financial times yesterday, front page too. Love how the yanks sneeze & we get the flu-ish ideas

Graham

listermint wrote: »

Few Air BnBr's in here it seems......

Having their cake and eating it too.

You can't really blame the landlords for giving it a go, triple the income on a single property and neatly sidestepping the hassle of the Residential Tenancies Act.

Precisely why something needs to change.

hytrogen wrote: »

They're being 'evicted' from New York according to an article in the financial times yesterday, front page too. Love how the yanks sneeze & we get the flu-ish ideas

Thanks, I must have a read. I suspect regulatory issues are one of, if not the biggest hurdles facing AirBnB in the coming years.

The way it is being used is not in the spirit of airbandb original purpose, it is not going to stop someone using their spare bedroom for an airbandb it it intended to deter property investors using it as an unmanned hotel.

Graham

mariaalice wrote: »

The way it is being used is not in the spirit of airbandb original purpose

That's it in a nutshell.

It's gone from a 'sharing economy' product utilising underused spare rooms (very clever) to a large scale, market-distorting vacuum for residential accommodation.

beauf

seamus wrote: »

Property takes years to build. There is no realistic way any government can snap their fingers and solve a housing shortage in a week, or even a year.

Even the so-called "rapid build" houses will take a year to finish the whole lot of them.

Houses are labour and time intensive, you can't just throw up big wooden boxes for people to live in. Well you can, but you'll be rebuilding them ten years later and dealing with all sorts of issues in the interim.

We're still 3-5 years away from any appreciable easing off of the housing shortage.

This shortage has been going on years, if not decades. There has been an on going issue with the privatisation of social housing.

So they allow loads of building of tiny apartments that are completely unsuited. Etc.

seamus

beauf wrote: »

This shortage has been going on years, if not decades. There has been an on going issue with the privatisation of social housing.

So they allow loads of building of tiny apartments that are completely unsuited. Etc.

I do agree to a certain extent - in theory we should have plenty of housing "left over" from the boom. But we don't, for a variety of reasons such as inadequate planning to abandoned estates.

But this current shortage has been in existence for about 3 years. And even then it's only been quite obviously at a critical level for 18 months to 2 years.

And building output has been on the up since the start of 2013. We are now building more than twice as many properties as we were then.

But the majority of properties coming available right now, started the whole process 2-3 years ago - when demand was half what it is now. So in order to catch up with rising demand, there is a significant lag period. As demand continues to rise, output will too, but lags behind by a couple of years. Hence another ~3 years before we'll see any reckonable easing off in the shortage.

Claw Hammer

beauf wrote: »

This shortage has been going on years, if not decades. There has been an on going issue with the privatisation of social housing.

So they allow loads of building of tiny apartments that are completely unsuited. Etc.

If you look back on this forum you will see that rents were falling 5 years ago. There was no shortage of accommodation. When it was becoming clear that the slack was being taken up and a shortage was looming those who pointed this out were accused of crying wolf.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=79006148

There seems to be an utter and complete inertia about this issue. Simple steps to preserve supply are not being taken, nonsense solutions with modular housing are being pursued, money is being wasted on paying for hoyels that could be used for building.
It is a complete joke.
The question must be asked. Who benefits?

This is very ingenious! don't normally listen to Joe Duffy apparently some individual has been renting 30 short term properties over the summer( student accommodation in the winter ) and using them for an airbandb business. note he was renting the properties not the owner. Obviousness the whole thing has got out of hand a bit.

Claw Hammer

Purpose built student properties have planning for short term lettings, so there is no problem with that.

newacc2015

Graham wrote: »

That's it in a nutshell.

It's gone from a 'sharing economy' product utilising underused spare rooms (very clever) to a large scale, market-distorting vacuum for residential accommodation.

No one on this thread seems to have crunched the numbers. You would swear about 10% of Dublin is now Airbnb with the way people are going on.

There is about 1,500 full property Airbnbs in Dublin. There is about 250k housing units in DCC. Meaning about 0.5% of Dublin City housing units are currently full time Airbnbs, which is not market distorting when you look at the bigger picture

Lets reverse blaming landlords for lack of housing and blame DCC for a minute. How many housing units did DCC take out of industry in 2013 by blaming bedsits? Probably well into several thousand. A lot of these houses are now empty or the 8-12 units that they were in are now a single family home.

A lot of peoples issue with Airbnb is not that it is taking housing units out of the market, it is your typical Irish BS of people being spiteful about others making more money than them. People complaining about Airbnb in Dublin, have no issue using it on their holidays. But have a massive issue with a Dublin landlord making twice as much on an Airbnb versus a long term let

The bigger issue on hand is DCC not building enough social housing