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

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?

L1011

Your interpretation is plainly wrong as you have plucked some text that looks useful out of context.

Councils can buy properties wherever they like with no cap

PapaG

L1011 wrote: »

Your interpretation is plainly wrong as you have plucked some text that looks useful out of context.

Councils can buy properties wherever they like with no cap

Source?

L1011

PapaG wrote: »

Source?

There isn't a source for this as not everything needs a law.

There is no maximum - simple as that. You have completely and utterly misinterpreted something completely different.

Marcusm

PapaG wrote: »

Source?

You need to understand that in a common law country, such as Ireland, that which is not precluded by law is permitted. Therefore, there is no general prohibition on any person buying any property from a willing seller.

As regards a local authority, it has power under the Local Government Acts and Housing Acts. It is permitted to acquire (whether through construction or purchase) property for the purposes of meeting its social housing obligations. It might not have a general power to acquire properties such as supermarkets or pubs but it os not generally limited in the types of housing which it can acquire.

PapaG

L1011 wrote: »

There isn't a source for this as not everything needs a law.

There is no maximum - simple as that. You have completely and utterly misinterpreted something completely different.

What a ridiculous answer.

PapaG

Marcusm wrote: »

You need to understand that in a common law country, such as Ireland, that which is not precluded by law is permitted. Therefore, there is no general prohibition on any person buying any property from a willing seller.

As regards a local authority, it has power under the Local Government Acts and Housing Acts. It is permitted to acquire (whether through construction or purchase) property for the purposes of meeting its social housing obligations. It might not have a general power to acquire properties such as supermarkets or pubs but it os not generally limited in the types of housing which it can acquire.

Back to my earlier point if that is the case then it should be more common knowledge than what it is. I’m not referring to ad how purchases here and there. If a developer advertises a new estate on the private market asking for top dollar then people should be aware that this could happen and consider this before buying. It’s probably another reason why builders are reluctant to build these days.

L1011

PapaG wrote: »

What a ridiculous answer.

How is it ridiculous?

Stuff is not illegal-unless-specifically-legal. That is an exact definition of the situation. You do not understand the basics here.

PapaG wrote: »

Back to my earlier point if that is the case then it should be more common knowledge than what it is. I’m not referring to ad how purchases here and there. If a developer advertises a new estate on the private market asking for top dollar then people should be aware that this could happen and consider this before buying. It’s probably another reason why builders are reluctant to build these days.

It is common knowledge that councils can buy whatever they have budgets to do so. Its not anyone else's fault that you were unaware of that - or are unaware of how the system has worked for over a decade. The law does not need to protect ignorance.

If you don't want to live in an estate with social housing in it, buy a standalone house. Because there are no guarantees otherwise. And you should make yourself aware of the forum charter, and the warnings on this thread, before continuing down the path its clear you're on.

PapaG

L1011 wrote: »

How is it ridiculous?

Stuff is not illegal-unless-specifically-legal. That is an exact definition of the situation. You do not understand the basics here.



It is common knowledge that councils can buy whatever they have budgets to do so. Its not anyone else's fault that you were unaware of that - or are unaware of how the system has worked for over a decade. The law does not need to protect ignorance.

If you don't want to live in an estate with social housing in it, buy a standalone house. Because there are no guarantees otherwise. And you should make yourself aware of the forum charter, and the warnings on this thread, before continuing down the path its clear you're on.

You should consider the condescending tone of your own messages such as implying that people are ignorant. You’re very quick to go referring to the charter when people beg to differ with your view and your unsubstantiated remarks. Maybe the site needs to consider who they use as moderators. Anyway thanks for your “input” but I’m not interested in debating the world according to a keyboard warrior with 40,000 posts.

L1011

If you have an issue with moderation, on-thread is not the place to discuss it. That manner would not be the way to discuss it in the appropriate channels either.

None of my remarks here are unsubstantiated - you simply do not understand that things that are legal do not always have to be specified as legal.

AndrewJRenko

PapaG wrote: »

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.

So where would you have bought if you had known there was no cap?