Is there a limit to the number of council houses in private estate?

macnug

And if so, what is it? Tried googling and found nothing but I remember hearing before that there was.

Gumbo

macnug wrote: »

And if so, what is it? Tried googling and found nothing but I remember hearing before that there was.

No, no max limit.
In new developments, developer have to allow for 10% of units to be bought by the council for social use but this will be a minimum of 10%. Some estates are more.

macnug

kceire wrote: »

No, no max limit.
In new developments, developer have to allow for 10% of units to be bought by the council for social use but this will be a minimum of 10%. Some estates are more.

Wow that is crazy. The reason I am asking is a lot of houses for sale in the estate I live have been bought by the council, and out-bidding private bidders in the process. I dont mind 10%-20% of them being council, but i thought surely they cant turn a whole private housing estate into effectively a council estate as it wouldn't be fair on the people with bought their houses. At the moment its around 10% in my estate but Im starting to wonder will it ever end.

Sleeper12

No limit.

I wonder if there was more than 50 percent would it become a council estate with private houses in it rather than a private estate with council houses on it

Mr_Man2121

macnug wrote: »

Wow that is crazy. The reason I am asking is a lot of houses for sale in the estate I live have been bought by the council, and out-bidding private bidders in the process. I dont mind 10%-20% of them being council, but i thought surely they cant turn a whole private housing estate into effectively a council estate as it wouldn't be fair on the people with bought their houses. At the moment its around 10% in my estate but Im starting to wonder will it ever end.

Same here too

uli84

macnug wrote: »

Wow that is crazy. The reason I am asking is a lot of houses for sale in the estate I live have been bought by the council, and out-bidding private bidders in the process. I dont mind 10%-20% of them being council, but i thought surely they cant turn a whole private housing estate into effectively a council estate as it wouldn't be fair on the people with bought their houses. At the moment its around 10% in my estate but Im starting to wonder will it ever end.

ShaneC93

macnug wrote: »

Wow that is crazy. The reason I am asking is a lot of houses for sale in the estate I live have been bought by the council, and out-bidding private bidders in the process. I dont mind 10%-20% of them being council, but i thought surely they cant turn a whole private housing estate into effectively a council estate as it wouldn't be fair on the people with bought their houses. At the moment its around 10% in my estate but Im starting to wonder will it ever end.

If it's a new development, the rules under Part V are that the local authority can decide what % of the units must be reserved for use as social housing but it is subject to a cap of 10%. So they cannot demand more than 10% be allocated.

If though, the development includes rental properties or the owners of the properties want to rent them directly to the council (who pay a guaranteed rate and take over the maintainence costs after 6 months) they can still do that and bring the percentage of social housing to more than 10% in the process.

macnug

ShaneC93 wrote: »

If it's a new development, the rules under Part V are that the local authority can decide what % of the units must be reserved for use as social housing but it is subject to a cap of 10%. So they cannot demand more than 10% be allocated.

If though, the development includes rental properties or the owners of the properties want to rent them directly to the council (who pay a guaranteed rate and take over the maintainence costs after 6 months) they can still do that and bring the percentage of social housing to more than 10% in the process.

No the estate was built in 2006 and back then the builder allocated units to the council as per agreement but in the last year or so, every house thats been sold has gone to the council. So far about 10 houses are now council in an estate of about 70.

Xterminator

the builder sells houses. the councils buy houses (in addition to allocated social houses).

their money is good. don't see the issue.

SteM

If I was in the position of trying to buy right now and was being out bid by a council using taxpayer money, that I've contributed to, then I might be a bit annoyed. This on top of the fact that many councils sold off a lot of their housing stock for a relative pittance back in the 90's. I could have some sympathy here.

Xterminator

i can understand people thinking the council housing strategy should be examined and revamped given today's housing market circumstances.

i cannot understand why the tenants who rent from the council are demonised for this.

if the council were banned from buying houses on the open market, will employees etc be left living in hostels? No, the tenant would be left in limbo.

The Student

Xterminator wrote: »

i can understand people thinking the council housing strategy should be examined and revamped given today's housing market circumstances.

i cannot understand why the tenants who rent from the council are demonised for this.

if the council were banned from buying houses on the open market, will employees etc be left living in hostels? No, the tenant would be left in limbo.

The issue is that a small minority and I mean a small minority of council tenants cause complete and utter havoc and the council don't care making other peoples lives a misery.

If councils dealt with this small minority then the demonizing of council tenants would quickly disappear.

macnug

I don't think anyone has even demonised council tenants in this thread, I havnt certainly, my issues is with there being no upper limit in private estates to the point a private estate could become majority council. This effects resale value for the remaining owner ocupiers. Plus one of the reasons that councils say they don't want to build estates anymore is to avoid ghettos, yet have no problem buying up whole estates.

The Student

macnug wrote: »

I don't think anyone has even demonised council tenants in this thread, I havnt certainly, my issues is with there being no upper limit in private estates to the point a private estate could become majority council. This effects resale value for the remaining owner ocupiers. Plus one of the reasons that councils say they don't want to build estates anymore is to avoid ghettos, yet have no problem buying up whole estates.

One of the main reason's ghetto's exist is because of the councils unwillingness to deal with the anti social behavior.

There is a stigma attached to council housing because of the small minority of problem tenants. You are indirectly discriminating against council tenants by querying at what point a private estate becomes a council one.

macnug

The Student wrote: »

macnug wrote: »

I don't think anyone has even demonised council tenants in this thread, I havnt certainly, my issues is with there being no upper limit in private estates to the point a private estate could become majority council. This effects resale value for the remaining owner ocupiers. Plus one of the reasons that councils say they don't want to build estates anymore is to avoid ghettos, yet have no problem buying up whole estates.

One of the main reason's ghetto's exist is because of the councils unwillingness to deal with the anti social behavior.

There is a stigma attached to council housing because of the small minority of problem tenants. You are indirectly discriminating against council tenants by querying at what point a private estate becomes a council one.

I didn't actually query that, I queried was there a limit to amount of private houses can be bought by the council in an estate. The intent was to seek clarification on the question, not discriminate.

I came from a council estate but decided to buy in a private estate because of the stigma, discrimination and more importantly the antisocial behaviour that comes with it.

I think it's unfair that you can work your way out of such ghettos only to find yourself back in one through no fault of your own with a large mortgage over your head. That being said I'm personally in a position where I could move tommorow but some of my neighbours are not.

SEPT 23 1989

Maybe once upon a time but today a lot of people would take the hand off you to become a council tenant in a private estate

An_Toirpin

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Maybe once upon a time but today a lot of people would take the hand off you to become a council tenant in a private estate

No one aims to become a council tenant. Who would?

Claw Hammer

An_Toirpin wrote: »

No one aims to become a council tenant. Who would?

Lots of people want to become a council tenant. Each council has long waiting lists of people who want to do just that.

An_Toirpin

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Lots of people want to become a council tenant. Each council has long waiting lists of people who want to do just that.

It is clearly their second choice, due to lack of skills and earning power.

Graham

Mod Note

An_Toirpin Do not post in this thread again

lawred2

The taxpayer is getting outbid by someone spending their taxes to house those who pay no taxes themselves

That'll end well alright

Claw Hammer

When the councils were building houses themselves it was found that it cost more than it would have cost to buy up private houses, so the councils started buying houses. there are guidelines as to the number of council tenants who can be house together as well as the overall desired mix. It is thus not going to be the case than an estate will turn into an entirely or even majority council tenanted development.

Eric Cartman

macnug wrote: »

Wow that is crazy. The reason I am asking is a lot of houses for sale in the estate I live have been bought by the council, and out-bidding private bidders in the process. I dont mind 10%-20% of them being council, but i thought surely they cant turn a whole private housing estate into effectively a council estate as it wouldn't be fair on the people with bought their houses. At the moment its around 10% in my estate but Im starting to wonder will it ever end.

Thats awful, I pity the people who will inevitably see the value of their house decrease and especially elderly people who thought they had done well having to watch a ghetto erupt before their eyes.

mloc123

An_Toirpin wrote: »

No one aims to become a council tenant. Who would?

Oh come on... Perhaps that is the PC viewpoint but everyone knows it is not the truth. You have 15/16 year old girls planning to get pregnant to "get a house".

splinter65

An_Toirpin wrote: »

No one aims to become a council tenant. Who would?

Of course people aim to be a council tenant. What’s wrong with being a council tenant? If you are 4th or 5th generation social housing tenant then your goal is to be housed by the local authority near to your family and friends. You wouldn’t have any interest in or expectation of owning a home.

Eric Cartman

splinter65 wrote: »

Of course people aim to be a council tenant. What’s wrong with being a council tenant? If you are 4th or 5th generation social housing tenant then your goal is to be housed by the local authority near to your family and friends. You wouldn’t have any interest in or expectation of owning a home.

and this is an attitude and problem in our society that needs to be killed stone dead.

4ensic15

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Thats awful, I pity the people who will inevitably see the value of their house decrease and especially elderly people who thought they had done well having to watch a ghetto erupt before their eyes.

Pride comes before a fall. People shouldn't be smug.

circular flexing

Do councils still buy houses directly? I was under the impression that most social housing is being purchased by associations like Tuath.

AndrewJRenko

splinter65 wrote: »

Of course people aim to be a council tenant. What’s wrong with being a council tenant? If you are 4th or 5th generation social housing tenant then your goal is to be housed by the local authority near to your family and friends. You wouldn’t have any interest in or expectation of owning a home.

Or perhaps you wouldn't have any expectation of getting the kind of job that allows you to own a home? You know, the jobs that pay more than the minimum wage?

Wanderer78

AndrewJRenko wrote:

Or perhaps you wouldn't have any expectation of getting the kind of job that allows you to own a home? You know, the jobs that pay more than the minimum wage?

Or maybe some simply do not have the abilities to get access to the type of jobs that pay the amounts, so they can afford to buy their own home?

L1011

Recent posting on this thread falls below the standard required by the forum charter. It is the same users posting the same stuff on similar threads each time and this isn't the first warning given. Please familiarise yourself with the charter and think before posting as action will have to follow in future

PapaG

macnug wrote: »

No the estate was built in 2006 and back then the builder allocated units to the council as per agreement but in the last year or so, every house thats been sold has gone to the council. So far about 10 houses are now council in an estate of about 70.

Exact same where I have my house, estate was also built c.2006. All the research I’ve done is that there is a cap of 10%. The Council seems to think otherwise but they have provided no evidence to substantiate their position. The Part V requirement was met years ago but they have now bought an additional 14 houses off Nama. Houses that were previously occupied on the private rental market until Nama kicked the tenants out. I am aware of this happening in other places. I have taken a case to the Ombudsman and they are currently investigating the matter. Maybe you should consider doing the same...

Graham

PapaG wrote: »

All the research I’ve done is that there is a cap of 10%.

Where did you come across that 10% figure? It's not a limit I've ever seen specified anywhere?

Mrs OBumble

circular flexing wrote: »

Do councils still buy houses directly? I was under the impression that most social housing is being purchased by associations like Tuath.

Yes, some do.


The 10% figure is a minimum. After that the council can negotiate with the developer to buy more - up to 100% (as the council is / was trying to do in a new build estate in Galway recently).

And they can also build more houses in an existing estate, if they own the land. So it can be more than 100%.

PapaG

Graham wrote: »

Where did you come across that 10% figure? It's not a limit I've ever seen specified anywhere?

The site has blocked me from posting URLs because I am a new user, so I will post quotes from some of my sources:

The Housing Agency:
“Part V is a mechanism, introduced by the Government, through which local authorities can obtain up to 10% of land zoned for housing development at “existing use value” rather than “development value” for the delivery of social and affordable housing”.

BTW the "About us" section of their website states: The Housing Agency was set up in May 2010 to work with and support local authorities, approved housing bodies, and the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government in the delivery of housing and housing services.

Legal opinion from Beauchamps Solicitors, Dublin: “The local authority has the discretion to decide what percentage of a development must be reserved for social housing but this is subject to a cap of 10% of the development.”
(publication no.464)

Journal(.ie) article dated 20 November 2018: "GOVERNMENT IS SET to oppose a Bill that would increase the percentage of social and affordable housing in private residential developments and in strategic development zones. The Sinn Féin Bill seeks an increase in the provision of social and affordable housing to 25% in private residential developments and to 30% in strategic development zones. Currently, private developments must include 10% social and affordable housing."

Happy to provide the urls when I'm allowed.

Graham

I would guess most of those limits refer to the developer obligations being capped at 10% rather than LAs being limited to 10% of a development being acquired on a commercial basis.

Added:

Beauchamps; Part V of the Planning and Development Act 2000 (Part V) provides for social and affordable housing obligations for developers.

StupidLikeAFox

@PapaG: You are talking about Part V which is related to planning of new developments. The builder can build the houses, hand over 10% and at this point the Part V obligation is satisfied. There is nothing to stop additional houses being bought by the council outside of the Part V planning stipulation

mdebets

PapaG wrote: »

The site has blocked me from posting URLs because I am a new user, so I will post quotes from some of my sources:

The Housing Agency:
“Part V is a mechanism, introduced by the Government, through which local authorities can obtain up to 10% of land zoned for housing development at “existing use value” rather than “development value” for the delivery of social and affordable housing”.

BTW the "About us" section of their website states: The Housing Agency was set up in May 2010 to work with and support local authorities, approved housing bodies, and the Department of Housing, Planning and Local Government in the delivery of housing and housing services.

Legal opinion from Beauchamps Solicitors, Dublin: “The local authority has the discretion to decide what percentage of a development must be reserved for social housing but this is subject to a cap of 10% of the development.”
(publication no.464)

Journal(.ie) article dated 20 November 2018: "GOVERNMENT IS SET to oppose a Bill that would increase the percentage of social and affordable housing in private residential developments and in strategic development zones. The Sinn Féin Bill seeks an increase in the provision of social and affordable housing to 25% in private residential developments and to 30% in strategic development zones. Currently, private developments must include 10% social and affordable housing."

Happy to provide the urls when I'm allowed.

You really need to read this in context. This is for new developments and it just states that a developer has to provide up to 10% (actual percentage determined by the council) of new houses as social housing.
It's not restricting the percentage of social housing in an estate. The council is within its rights to demand 10% of a new development to be provided as social housing by the developer and then buying the remaining 90% as social housing from the developer at normal prices.

PapaG

mdebets wrote: »

You really need to read this in context. This is for new developments and it just states that a developer has to provide up to 10% (actual percentage determined by the council) of new houses as social housing.
It's not restricting the percentage of social housing in an estate. The council is within its rights to demand 10% of a new development to be provided as social housing by the developer and then buying the remaining 90% as social housing from the developer at normal prices.

that would be fine if they bought the remaining 90% but 50% of the estate has already been sold and people have paid up to €250k. We have been given estimations from local auctioneers that the houses could drop in value up to €100k in the medium term as a result. If Councils can do this then it should be made known at a national level before people jump through hoops to get a mortgage.

Also, on what basis are you forming your opinion on? Have you sources you can provide to back up what you're saying or is that just your opinion?o0o

PapaG

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Yes, some do.


The 10% figure is a minimum. After that the council can negotiate with the developer to buy more - up to 100% (as the council is / was trying to do in a new build estate in Galway recently).

And they can also build more houses in an existing estate, if they own the land. So it can be more than 100%.

What information are you basing that comment on? Have you sources that confirm this? If so, please pass them on, thanks.

PapaG

mdebets wrote: »

You really need to read this in context. This is for new developments and it just states that a developer has to provide up to 10% (actual percentage determined by the council) of new houses as social housing.
It's not restricting the percentage of social housing in an estate. The council is within its rights to demand 10% of a new development to be provided as social housing by the developer and then buying the remaining 90% as social housing from the developer at normal prices.

Have you sources to substantiate that? Please share. It would be fine if they bought the remaining 90% but not when half the estate was marketed and sold as a private estate. Plus they bought them off a vulture fund not off the developer.

StupidLikeAFox

The regulation you are quoting is a planning regulation for new developments, it is not a law that applies to acquisition of houses by a council.

metricspaces

macnug wrote: »

asking is a lot of houses for sale in the estate I live have been bought by the council, and out-bidding private bidders in the process.

How do you know the council bought the houses?

I guess this is not a new development you are talking about? New developments don't typically have bidders, you pay the asking price.

Graham

PapaG wrote: »

Have you sources to substantiate that? Please share. It would be fine if they bought the remaining 90% but not when half the estate was marketed and sold as a private estate. Plus they bought them off a vulture fund not off the developer.

You've made the claim that LAs are limited. None of the details you've provided appear to substantiate your opinion.

PapaG

Graham wrote: »

You've made the claim that LAs are limited. None of the details you've provided appear to substantiate your opinion.

I disagree, its a private development, the sources refer to "caps" and "up to" in terms of use for social housing in a private development. If the Council buys up an estate then its no longer a private development. Anyway its down to interpretation which is why I've asked for the matter to be investigated. I haven't seen anything here to substantiate the claims that LAs are not restricted. Its fairly clear that the Government is bending its own rules to solve their own mess.

Sure who wouldn't want to live in a €250k house for next to nothing, tis a great little country.

Graham

PapaG wrote: »

I disagree, its a private development, the sources refer to "caps" and "up to" in terms of use for social housing in a private development. If the Council buys up an estate then its no longer a private development. Anyway its down to interpretation

That refers to the developers (Part V) obligations. I don't see any part of it that's open to your interpretation.

PapaG wrote: »

I haven't seen anything here to substantiate the claims that LAs are not restricted. Its fairly clear that the Government is bending its own rules to solve their own mess.

See previous answer, your assertion that the rules are being bent appears to be based on a misunderstanding of who the obligations apply to.

I've no particular axe to grind here, I genuinely see nothing to support your interpretation.

The Student

Graham wrote: »

That refers to the developers (Part V) obligations. I don't see any part of it that's open to your interpretation.



See previous answer, your assertion that the rules are being bent appears to be based on a misunderstanding of who the obligations apply to.

I've no particular axe to grind here, I genuinely see nothing to support your interpretation.

My understanding of the rules are that in order to be granted planning permission for any new builds Part V must be met. I think if my memory serves me right it was 10% for social housing but I think this was increased to 20%.

There is nothing preventing councils from purchasing additional properties in an estate at an agreed price with the developer. This is not happening to any great extent although it is happening in some instances.

What has been happening is that the council have their 20% and Approved Housing bodies are purchasing on average 30% of properties resulting in 50% of estates being social tenants under one guise or another.

There is no onus on the developer or estate agent to highlight these facts as they will sell to whomever will pay.

Claw Hammer

Originally the councils were to have 20% at a special reduced price and it was later reduced to 10%. In some cases councils are buying additional houses at market prices on the second hand market. There is nothing in law to prevent this or cap the extent to which the council can do this in any particular estate.

PapaG

Graham wrote: »

That refers to the developers (Part V) obligations. I don't see any part of it that's open to your interpretation.



See previous answer, your assertion that the rules are being bent appears to be based on a misunderstanding of who the obligations apply to.

I've no particular axe to grind here, I genuinely see nothing to support your interpretation.

Well, if that is the case then it should be made widely known so that people can make informed decisions when buying a house in a new estate; especially when they have scrimped and saved for a deposit to meet restrictive CBI lending rules and jumped through hoops with the bank to take out a mortgage for 20 to 30 years. Nobody in my estate knew of this possibility. I certainly wouldn't have bought where I did had I known and most of my neighbours wouldn't have either. Of course the Government and developers wouldn't want that getting out as many people wouldn't want to buy in a new development or people would hold out to see who has bought there first, more would decide not to even bother trying, adding even more dysfunction to an already dysfunctional market.

Marcusm

PapaG wrote: »

Well, if that is the case then it should be made widely known so that people can make informed decisions when buying a house in a new estate; especially when they have scrimped and saved for a deposit to meet restrictive CBI lending rules and jumped through hoops with the bank to take out a mortgage for 20 to 30 years. Nobody in my estate knew of this possibility. I certainly wouldn't have bought where I did had I known and most of my neighbours wouldn't have either. Of course the Government and developers wouldn't want that getting out as many people wouldn't want to buy in a new development or people would hold out to see who has bought there first, more would decide not to even bother trying, adding even more dysfunction to an already dysfunctional market.

The point you are missing is that this can happen on any street, estate, development or whatever. The local authority can acquire houses or support tenants via HAP in houses wherever it likes.

bigpink

PapaG wrote: »

Exact same where I have my house, estate was also built c.2006. All the research I’ve done is that there is a cap of 10%. The Council seems to think otherwise but they have provided no evidence to substantiate their position. The Part V requirement was met years ago but they have now bought an additional 14 houses off Nama. Houses that were previously occupied on the private rental market until Nama kicked the tenants out. I am aware of this happening in other places. I have taken a case to the Ombudsman and they are currently investigating the matter. Maybe you should consider doing the same...

Why did you bring a case to an Ombudsman?