Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

Idbatterim

the ban air bnb to put more houses onto the long term let market and only a week or so ago, these morons stopped the development of 500 homes in north dublin, due to some birds...

I hope this can be legally challenged. I think its going too far, when the government dictate what you can and cant do with your property, down to their failure, this housing crisis in entirely their fault! not mine, not yours and certainly not f*cking airbnb's!

fergus1001

Idbatterim wrote: »

I hope this can be legally challenged. I think its going too far, when the government dictate what you can and cant do with your property, down to their failure, this housing crisis in entirely their fault! not mine, not yours and certainly not f*cking airbnb's!

So how much for night in your air B and B ?

your planing permission dictates that you cant operate as an air B and B as it is a change in the use of the property, it hasn't been enforced up to now is the problem

LuckyLloyd

Idbatterim wrote: »

the ban air bnb to put more houses onto the long term let market and only a week or so ago, these morons stopped the development of 500 homes in north dublin, due to some birds...

I hope this can be legally challenged. I think its going too far, when the government dictate what you can and cant do with your property, down to their failure, this housing crisis in entirely their fault! not mine, not yours and certainly not f*cking airbnb's!

The government has always dictated what you can and can't do with your property via Planning Permission Regulations.

abcabc123123

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

The government has always dictated what you can and can't do with your property via Planning Permission Regulations.

I'd also point out that the "morons" bringing in the airbnb legislation are a completely different group of people to those who rejected the St Anne's development.

KyussB

LiamoSail wrote: »

I never said that.

I said historically, much of the planning in Dublin City was a result of a corrupt process. See the Gilmartin tribunal. There was extensive corruption uncovered involving successive FF Governments and Dublin City council. For this reason, it's perhaps understandable why people have little regard for the planning laws in this country. Why adhere to a corrupt process when there is no enforcement?

My point doesn't relate to these new Airbnb laws, but the existing planning in the city

The regulations on short term lets don't have any relation to planning corruption. Planning corruption does not make breaking the law regarding short term lets, understandable.

Corrupt abuse of the planning process, does not make the entire planning system corrupt, neither does it make it ethically/morally understandable - or in any other way understandable - to selectively choose which laws you can follow.

This is fairly uncomplicated, and should be beyond debate. It is not ok for these landlords, to act as if the law does not apply to them - and to exploit the rental market by breaking the law - to the detriment of long term renters.

ballyharpat

I do airbnb from my own property that I live in and I have my other properties let out long term. There is a house down the road from me that is let out short term, once a month there have been rowdy guests that upset me and my other neighbours, the guests that stay in my house are under my supervision and do not cause any problems. In kerry, it will be a long time before there is a law stopping whole houses being let, but I knew 2 years ago something would have to be done, it mught prevent more people getting into the market with the purpose of short term lets hopefully. On the plus side for me, it will mean there will be more demand for single rooms on airbnb, so I will be able to raise my prices.

Mike3549

BarryD2 wrote: »

I must be missing something here. What's the difference between Air BnB type letting and the traditional holiday letting of houses near the coast say? Just different means of advertising & selling a short term letting. How can you ban one without banning the other? Pls excuse my ignorance.

Theres no difference between airB&B and holiday home lettings. But you cannot do airB&B with residential properties like apartments in Dublin city centre or other properties that are not designed as holiday homes or short lets.

Spanish Eyes

I would not do air B.B. in my PPR. I’d rather have a Monday to Friday lodger under RAR.

I could do it in the morning, but until I need the loot I will live in my house with two spare bedrooms empty..

I am fortunate that I don’t need to do it right now, but the option is there. I don’t really know what this new legislation/regulation will achieve, but hopefully it will help free up properties for long term rent or sale to those who need it.

Perhaps I am missing something very important in all this, sorry if so!

Idbatterim

fergus1001 wrote: »

So how much for night in your air B and B ?

your planing permission dictates that you cant operate as an air B and B as it is a change in the use of the property, it hasn't been enforced up to now is the problem

I dont own property! There are simple solutions to this "crisis" the state has masses of land, insists on build "standards" that make apartments very expensive and put them out of reach of low to mid income workers. Allow higher density and reduce apartment build costs, it costs nothing and would go a massive way towards solving the problem. This is a total smoke screen for their own failure, blame airbnb! LOL! LOL!

The government has always dictated what you can and can't do with your property via Planning Permission Regulations.

the good aul government, how could anyone question their motives or agenda? LOL!

L1011

Ginger83 wrote: »

Which will help renters how?

By moving people who are renting but want to buy out of the rental market

Accommodation is not a zero sum game. More hotels reduce the demands on short term lets; more student accomodation reduces the demands on private rental and also releases houses for purchase; more houses to purchase reduces demand on private rental and so on.

DubCount

I don't believe that this is as easy as people reckon.

There may well be loop holes in the law that will allow some of the current short term rentals to stay as short term rentals.

This does not sound like an easy law to enforce. There is likely to be some level of non-compliance.

I just don't believe the majority of this housing stock will be automatically transferred into long term rentals. Some will be left vacant. Some will be kept as a holiday properties. Most will be sold - good news for buyers in the short term, but eventually house prices will come back to current levels when the one-off benefit works through the system. This will relieve some demand in the rental sector, but again the effect is only short term.

At best, this may help the short term market. It will leave a big shortage of hotel accommodation and some building output will be transferred from residential building to hotel building.

In the longer term, this just doesn't help fix the underlying reasons there is a steady stream of landlords leaving the long term rental market.

Donnielighto

If houses come on the market and prices drop a bit I'll probably go owner occupier renting. I'd fill my house.

4ensic15

Idbatterim wrote: »

There are simple solutions to this "crisis" Allow higher density and reduce apartment build costs, it costs nothing and would go a massive way towards solving the problem.

Allowing higher density and lowering build costs per unit will not get anything built. There is no funding, at any reasonable cost, for building apartments available. The state has no money. Developers have no money. The banks have no money. The problem with simple solutions is that they are illusory.

Donnielighto

DubCount wrote: »

I don't believe that this is as easy as people reckon.

There may well be loop holes in the law that will allow some of the current short term rentals to stay as short term rentals.

This does not sound like an easy law to enforce. There is likely to be some level of non-compliance.

I just don't believe the majority of this housing stock will be automatically transferred into long term rentals. Some will be left vacant. Some will be kept as a holiday properties. Most will be sold - good news for buyers in the short term, but eventually house prices will come back to current levels when the one-off benefit works through the system. This will relieve some demand in the rental sector, but again the effect is only short term.

At best, this may help the short term market. It will leave a big shortage of hotel accommodation and some building output will be transferred from residential building to hotel building.

In the longer term, this just doesn't help fix the underlying reasons there is a steady stream of landlords leaving the long term rental market.

If airbnb are providing info to the government it'll reduce those. Copycat sites though might pick up some of the slack.

BarryD2

Mike3549 wrote: »

Theres no difference between airB&B and holiday home lettings. But you cannot do airB&B with residential properties like apartments in Dublin city centre or other properties that are not designed as holiday homes or short lets.

Still a bit confused! Surely you don't need PP to have a second house, say down at Brittas Bay, advertise and let it out in the season. This is not your principal private residence.

So how could you ban Air BnB for non PPR without also banning the above normal scenario? It would either 1) mean that anyone renting our holiday properties, by whatever advertising/ booking/ payment means would have to apply for PP or 2) such a restriction would have to be limited to geographic areas. But would the latter pass muster in the courts??

Graham

BarryD2 wrote: »

Still a bit confused! Surely you don't need PP to have a second house, say down at Brittas Bay, advertise and let it out in the season. This is not your principal private residence.

If the use of the house is predominantly holiday lettings then yes you need planning permission.

BarryD2 wrote: »

So how could you ban Air BnB for non PPR without also banning the above normal scenario? It would either 1) mean that anyone renting our holiday properties, by whatever advertising/ booking/ payment means would have to apply for PP or 2) such a restriction would have to be limited to geographic areas. But would the latter pass muster in the courts??

There are no proposals to ban AirBnB.
There are proposals to limit short-term lettings for properties that don't have appropriate planning permission.
There are proposals that such limits will initially apply to rent pressure zones (geographic areas).
Why would the courts get involved in opposing legislation?

Mike3549

BarryD2 wrote: »

Still a bit confused! Surely you don't need PP to have a second house, say down at Brittas Bay, advertise and let it out in the season. This is not your principal private residence.

So how could you ban Air BnB for non PPR without also banning the above normal scenario? It would either 1) mean that anyone renting our holiday properties, by whatever advertising/ booking/ payment means would have to apply for PP or 2) such a restriction would have to be limited to geographic areas. But would the latter pass muster in the courts??

You wont need a pp for a holiday homes, i dont think you will find a lot of holiday homes in the centre of dublin or cork.

Idbatterim

4ensic15 wrote: »

Allowing higher density and lowering build costs per unit will not get anything built. There is no funding, at any reasonable cost, for building apartments available. The state has no money. Developers have no money. The banks have no money. The problem with simple solutions is that they are illusory.

More comedy. There are insane amounts of money out there seeking a return... better than the bear zero % you get from the banks

beauf

DubCount wrote: »

...In the longer term, this just doesn't help fix the underlying reasons there is a steady stream of landlords leaving the long term rental market.

So you have any stats to back that up.

Looking at the RTB figures a massive number of landlords left after the crash. Since then there's a net increase each year. But it's a trickle. Still a long way to get back to the numbers that left back then.

I suspect we have small landlords leaving and more large landlord entering. But I've not seen if stats exist to back that up.

So do you have any numbers to prove a steady stream to counter the PRTB figures.

There is a large net increase of population though immigration.

We are are building a tiny trickle of the housing that is needed.

Samuel T. Cogley

There is absolutely no chance this legislation will fall foul of the courts. Number one it's perfectly legal and arguably not even needed given current planning laws, second we have arguably unconstitutional legislation in the form for rental caps and has anyone taken a case?

TheBoyConor

The most retarded thing I've seen in a while.

All that is going to happen is that non PPRs will be air BnBed for the 180s during high season and they will be left empty and idle for the other 180 days.

Nobody wants to be a small time landlord, and for good reason. It's a mugs game and far too risky.

pearcider

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The most retarded thing I've seen in a while.

All that is going to happen is that non PPRs will be air BnBed for the 180s during high season and they will be left empty and idle for the other 180 days.

Nobody wants to be a small time landlord, and for good reason. It's a mugs game and far too risky.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/thousands-of-listings-pulled-off-airbnb-as-vancouver-s-new-rules-come-into-effect-1.4081831

Wishful thinking on your part buddy. Initial studies show it seems to have worked in Vancouver. Yeah some landlords might leave their apartments vacant for 180 days out of bitterness but most will want full occupancy. All the new hotel rooms coming online over the next few years will drive prices down too.

the_syco

pearcider wrote: »

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/canada/thousands-of-listings-pulled-off-airbnb-as-vancouver-s-new-rules-come-into-effect-1.4081831

That's Vancouver. I thought Ireland was following Toronto rules? Vancouver is in BC, whilst Toronto is in ON, over 4,000km away.

AlmightyCushion

the_syco wrote: »

That's Vancouver. I thought Ireland was following Toronto rules? Vancouver is in BC, whilst Toronto is in ON, over 4,000km away.

It's in the article.

In January, Toronto passed similar regulations outlawing short-term rentals in non-primary residences.

utmbuilder

when i vacation I stay in up market airbnb with the family, the last place in gran canaria was worth about 900k

had dyson air con, a telephone in the shower, 65inch flat screen gadgets everywhere

all while my mad brood ran wild in the place, they didn't break anything but the amount of wear and tear from having 50 to 80 guests in a property a year must be evident

unless it's the bare basics your giving people, cleaning jack pots, better be giving landlords a 12% return

if it's not they are mugs

GingerLily

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The most retarded thing I've seen in a while.

All that is going to happen is that non PPRs will be air BnBed for the 180s during high season and they will be left empty and idle for the other 180 days.

Nobody wants to be a small time landlord, and for good reason. It's a mugs game and far too risky.

Can anyone link me to where non PPR which do not have PP for short term rentals, can let their properties for up to 180 days per year under the new proposal?

I can only see 90 days for PPRs and commercial short term let's being mentioned.

Samuel T. Cogley

utmbuilder wrote: »

when i vacation I stay in up market airbnb with the family, the last place in gran canaria was worth about 900k

had dyson air con, a telephone in the shower, 65inch flat screen gadgets everywhere

all while my mad brood ran wild in the place, they didn't break anything but the amount of wear and tear from having 50 to 80 guests in a property a year must be evident

unless it's the bare basics your giving people, cleaning jack pots, better be giving landlords a 12% return

if it's not they are mugs

The waer an tear is strong that's for bloody sure. In three months I've spent hundreds on my gaffe. Now some of it was from the previous tenants not - they were great and never complained - kinda wish they had about a couple of things! But my window locks have been broken twice in 3 months.


The return on my place it was definately worth it over the summer, dunno beyond that and now it doesn't look like I will, be hey ho cookie crumbling and all that. Renting it to the coucil looks like a great proposition even though I'll have to do some work to get it up to spec.

L1011

TheBoyConor wrote: »

The most retarded thing I've seen in a while.

All that is going to happen is that non PPRs will be air BnBed for the 180s during high season and they will be left empty and idle for the other 180 days.

Nobody wants to be a small time landlord, and for good reason. It's a mugs game and far too risky.

If something is left empty the other 180 days, it isn't a PPR and will then be limited to 0.

GingerLily

L1011 wrote: »

If something is left empty the other 180 days, it isn't a PPR and will then be limited to 0.

I don't think they read the proposals

ArrBee

Wildly Boaring wrote: »

4. More regulation. Just what we need here

I agree!

There is a poor history of unregulated markets leading to bad outcomes in this country.
About time some sensible regulations were put in place, then enforced so that society as a whole benefits and grows.