Social Housing Areas - Dublin Councils

Fan of Netflix

Seen an interesting post there that the Greater Lucan area is soaking up all the social housing in South Dublin County Council from other areas, and possible issues arising from this.

Just wondering in the 4 Dublin councils, (DCC, Fingal, South Dublin, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown):

1. Within those councils what areas are getting big amounts of new social housing and what areas are getting no social housing these days?

2. And at an overall level, which areas would be taking the big % of social housing in each council level?

I believe in relation to (1) Balbriggan is getting a lot of council housing from surrounding areas in Fingal. Obviously Lucan mentioned re SDCC. In relation to (2) Ballymun historically would have had a lot of council housing in DCC and also the North Inner City. No real knowledge on the Dun Laoghaire council.

myshirt

Donabate is becoming a dumping ground for social housing. Both Part V and also a lot of HAP deals which have been prefunded.

Anywhere where you can get a 3 bed for less than 400k will always be a target. It's just the practicalities of it. Council's can't really justify buying a 600k apartment to put someone in there on a differential rent.

Johouse

We have been looking at Shankill but are now reading about the 600 units - mainly social and affordable which are planned for Shanganagh. What are people’s view on this development?

shesty

Lusk is getting it too.
None being built in Malahide and Portmarnock.....

Maurice Yeltsin

Is there a list available anywhere of all new social developments, where they have been built or are planned to be built, etc.

A lot of the ones announced seem to be latching 30 or so homes on to the edge of existing estates rather than building completely new ones. Social commentators prattling nonsense about avoiding building "another Ballymun", large estates are exactly what is needed.

Maurice Yeltsin

Johouse wrote: »

We have been looking at Shankill but are now reading about the 600 units - mainly social and affordable which are planned for Shanganagh. What are people’s view on this development?

Much needed. It is an utter disgrace that formerly social housing in DLR goes for upwards of 380k. A working class school leaver is better advised to go on the dole if they wish to remain living where they grew up.

In saying that, it also puzzles me. Nobody would dream of paying 380k for a house in a council estate in Finglas, Blanch etc etc. The Shankill, Sallynoggin and Ballybrack estates are still significantly council tenanted, are the majority of these homes being bought as BTL's?

Sonny noggs

shesty wrote: »

Lusk is getting it too.
None being built in Malahide and Portmarnock.....

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

Maurice Yeltsin

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

Agreed, although it is similarly appalling that formerly council owned properties can be sold for a price out of reach of the majority of the working class.

Sonny noggs

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Agreed, although it is similarly appalling that formerly council owned properties can be sold for a price out of reach of the majority of the working class.

Y, council housing should never have been sold off on the cheap.

Cal4567

Finding quite a mix of tenants now in social housing, many of whom are working but with those on good salarys now not being able to get mortgages due to a mix of the central bank rules and high values, I guess this is an outcome of those developments.

Does this mean we are getting a mix on new social housing estates, not by design but by default? Probably not planned, but a result indirectly of present circumstances.

This is coming from developers who tell me they were initially concerned with Part V but the reality is different.

Cal4567

Maurice Yeltsin wrote: »

Is there a list available anywhere of all new social developments, where they have been built or are planned to be built, etc.

A lot of the ones announced seem to be latching 30 or so homes on to the edge of existing estates rather than building completely new ones. Social commentators prattling nonsense about avoiding building "another Ballymun", large estates are exactly what is needed.

Do you think the social housing should remain segregated from everywhere else then?

Maurice Yeltsin

Cal4567 wrote: »

Finding quite a mix of tenants now in social housing, many of whom are working but with those on good salarys now not being able to get mortgages due to a mix of the central bank rules and high values, I guess this is an outcome of those developments.

Does this mean we are getting a mix on new social housing estates, not by design but by default? Probably not planned, but a result indirectly of present circumstances.

This is coming from developers who tell me they were initially concerned with Part V but the reality is different.

I'd have thought that with the income thresholds you would be getting a lower grade of tenant than before. Like, a couple who both work at even low paid jobs are effectively barred from social housing.

Cal4567

No, I think it's a higher grade of tenant than before. Right up to the crash those on very average incomes were able to get mortgages, leaving just social housing to those who didn't work. It is those who are now getting social housing tenancies.

klaaaz

There is hardly any land left in the DCC area for mass building of social housing. Now, there has been and will be small scale building on sites with mixed housing (Ballymun is the latest) plus the previously announced big site on Coolock Lane. From this, the only naturally obtainable land for mass housing is in the Fingal and SDCC area for both private and social housing which these days is mostly apartments.

Social housing is not exclusive to the stereotype of those "who don't work", it involves people(single/couple) who work and cannot afford a home in Dublin, this includes people on good wages but cannot afford a home due to high house prices. It also involves people who have disabilities, this part is forgotten.

Fan of Netflix

Wonder could we have a situation like in London, where councils like Dun Laoghaire Rathdown pay other councils to house people on their social housing list? Could end up cheaper and more feasible. Any chance of that happening?

MrDerp

Cal4567 wrote: »

Finding quite a mix of tenants now in social housing, many of whom are working but with those on good salarys now not being able to get mortgages due to a mix of the central bank rules and high values, I guess this is an outcome of those developments.

Does this mean we are getting a mix on new social housing estates, not by design but by default? Probably not planned, but a result indirectly of present circumstances.

This is coming from developers who tell me they were initially concerned with Part V but the reality is different.

This is far from unusual. I grew up in a Council house, given to a family in the 80s with one working (public sector, lower grades) parent, and later two working parents who eventually bought the place.

It’s not all people on income supplements and jobseekers benefit/allowance, the purpose of social housing is to support a baseline standard of living.

The problem is that economic factors increase the demand at a time when the government has the least money to spend on it, and land prices seem to increase faster than economic recovery can provide for the working class.

We now have some money to build houses, but land prices are already peaking. Mixing the demographics sounds nice and principled, but spending over half a million to house one family in an expensive area is madness when you can house two families elsewhere.

Klonker

No couple on 'good wages' as you called it, are getting social housing in Ireland. Max you can be earning in Dublin is about less than 50k gross, far from a good wage in Dublin. Not far above 2 minimum wage jobs actually.

LirW

Klonker wrote: »

No couple on 'good wages' as you called it, are getting social housing in Ireland. Max you can be earning in Dublin is about less than 50k gross, far from a good wage in Dublin. Not far above 2 minimum wage jobs actually.

Take a cook and a cleaner where the latter is in a dodgy contract, throw a kid in the mix, you know, people that are genuinely trying their best.
All the families being housed in the council have in common that they all had children really early and the dad works some demanding job with crap pay while she's at home juggling kids and try getting qualifications from home, funnily enough all care-related.
They also all have in common that they often don't have their leaving cert and aren't academically gifted but are genuinely trying hard to get it together.
The odd couple then manage to turn it around completely and as long as the council doesn't change policies I can't blame them for staying put or buying from the council. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Klonker

LirW wrote:

Take a cook and a cleaner where the latter is in a dodgy contract, throw a kid in the mix, you know, people that are genuinely trying their best. All the families being housed in the council have in common that they all had children really early and the dad works some demanding job with crap pay while she's at home juggling kids and try getting qualifications from home, funnily enough all care-related. They also all have in common that they often don't have their leaving cert and aren't academically gifted but are genuinely trying hard to get it together. The odd couple then manage to turn it around completely and as long as the council doesn't change policies I can't blame them for staying put or buying from the council. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

LirW wrote:

Take a cook and a cleaner where the latter is in a dodgy contract, throw a kid in the mix, you know, people that are genuinely trying their best. All the families being housed in the council have in common that they all had children really early and the dad works some demanding job with crap pay while she's at home juggling kids and try getting qualifications from home, funnily enough all care-related. They also all have in common that they often don't have their leaving cert and aren't academically gifted but are genuinely trying hard to get it together. The odd couple then manage to turn it around completely and as long as the council doesn't change policies I can't blame them for staying put or buying from the council. Don't hate the player, hate the game.

So your saying every single family that has got social house in the last few years the father's working, they have children and the mother's are all studying towards care related qualifications?

Cal4567

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

Wonder could we have a situation like in London, where councils like Dun Laoghaire Rathdown pay other councils to house people on their social housing list? Could end up cheaper and more feasible. Any chance of that happening?

A good idea but the idea of councils here working together is alien to most. I think if the national civil servants push this, it will happen, but won't be engineered by the councils.

Cal4567

Klonker wrote: »

No couple on 'good wages' as you called it, are getting social housing in Ireland. Max you can be earning in Dublin is about less than 50k gross, far from a good wage in Dublin. Not far above 2 minimum wage jobs actually.

Replace 'good' with 'average'. Those earners are in social housing.

Klonker

Cal4567 wrote:

Replace 'good' with 'average'. Those earners are in social housing.

I'm sorry but a couple in Dublin earning 25k each gross is not an average wage, it's a low wage, it's not even much above the minimum wage.

listermint

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

Except it's the norm on the continent.

listermint

klaaaz wrote: »

There is hardly any land left in the DCC area for mass building of social housing. Now, there has been and will be small scale building on sites with mixed housing (Ballymun is the latest) plus the previously announced big site on Coolock Lane. From this, the only naturally obtainable land for mass housing is in the Fingal and SDCC area for both private and social housing which these days is mostly apartments.

Social housing is not exclusive to the stereotype of those "who don't work", it involves people(single/couple) who work and cannot afford a home in Dublin, this includes people on good wages but cannot afford a home due to high house prices. It also involves people who have disabilities, this part is forgotten.

This post 100%


People always love to spina yarn about scroungers etc etc

The vast majority of social housing in Dublin has working people in it and many spoofers in here their parents or grandparents came from it and benefited from it.

Pull the ladder up aye...

seasidedub

shesty wrote: »

Lusk is getting it too.
None being built in Malahide and Portmarnock.....

There is nowhere to build in Malahide village, but Waterside which is technically Malahide (postal address) but really Swords has plenty of social housing in it, plus there are 2 huge sites close to Waterside for sale which were farms but will be development now and they'll have social housing. Kinsealy is getting social housing too.

Portmarnock has St.Marnocks and Dun Si and social housing in both. Robswalls has some social too (confirmed by F.G. canvas guy during elections).

InTheShadows

klaaaz wrote: »

There is hardly any land left in the DCC area for mass building of social housing. Now, there has been and will be small scale building on sites with mixed housing (Ballymun is the latest) plus the previously announced big site on Coolock Lane. From this, the only naturally obtainable land for mass housing is in the Fingal and SDCC area for both private and social housing which these days is mostly apartments.

Social housing is not exclusive to the stereotype of those "who don't work", it involves people(single/couple) who work and cannot afford a home in Dublin, this includes people on good wages but cannot afford a home due to high house prices. It also involves people who have disabilities, this part is forgotten.

It's only forgotten by those who are ignorant.

myshirt

There isn't much in St Marnocks and Dun Si by way of direct social housing, less than 6 units apparently but I'm not as familiar with the area as with others. There is a good chunk of buy to rent out there which will have HAP tenants which is social housing too really, but go a bit North for the big fish. It's Donabate and Balbriggan taking the social housing.

Donabate mostly.

seasidedub

One thing I'm curious about though is apartment or estate management/maintenance fees. In an apartment of 400k (under the social housing threshold for Fingal which is 480k) the yearly fee can be as much as 3k. If you're a social tenant, who pays that? Is the cost absorbed by the private tenants?

Graces7

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

why not?

seasidedub

myshirt wrote: »

There isn't much in St Marnocks and Dun Si by way of direct social housing, less than 6 units apparently but I'm not as familiar with the area as with others. There is a good chunk of buy to rent out there which will have HAP tenants which is social housing too really, but go a bit North for the big fish. It's Donabate and Balbriggan taking the social housing.

Donabate mostly.

I live not too far, and they had to provide 10% of the units under the 480k threshold for "direct" social housing but the buy to let will provide more via Hap as you say.

I admit I'd find it hard to pay 480 and know I was beside someone who paid nothing. (If you are on welfare you pay rent from welfare, so it's free). I just would, sorry but it's true.

Donald Trump

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

The reasons areas are cheaper is often because they are full of social housing.


The reasons areas are more expensive is often because they have zero social housing.


So if the councils enforced a proper mix, it wouldn't add to the cycle

shesty

seasidedub wrote: »

I live not too far, and they had to provide 10% of the units under the 480k threshold for "direct" social housing but the buy to let will provide more via Hap as you say.

I admit I'd find it hard to pay 480 and know I was beside someone who paid nothing. (If you are on welfare you pay rent from welfare, so it's free). I just would, sorry but it's true.

We currently have this situation in our estate - it's an older estate but some houses in recent years have been moved to this set up by the Council (not getting into detail). It's not a nice feeling, if I'm honest. I am all for having a social safety net for people and I really don't know if big social housing estates are the only solution either, yet a bit of me can't help feeling annoyed that the lad around the corner is paying nothing or next to nothing for the exact same house as all the people around us, and we are all out most the day working to pay for ourselves. It just - feels unfair somehow. And I know it's not the correct thing to say or think, but it's hard to feel otherwise.

InTheShadows

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

Yes it's called integration.

Gumbo

Sonny noggs wrote: »

There is no possible justification for social housing in expensive neighbourhoods.

Sorry to burst your bubble but it’s happening currently. I’ve 2 sites on my books where houses are selling for over €1m.

Both those sites handed over one dwelling each for social housing (Part V).
It’s compulsory and no way around it.

retalivity

And I know it's not the correct thing to say or think

Its exactly the correct thing to say! Too many people pander to this notion that people have a god-given right to live somewhere for bugger all. The sooner it stops, the better.

Dcc are building a 7storey 100% social housing block on a small sliver of land between an existing apt block and a brand new park in dublin 8. Besides the fact that the new building impacts the light and privacy of surrounding homeowners, is going to overhang on a bloody park, it will be filled with 100+ who could be housed in longford for a fraction of the price, as they contribute nothing to the area and have no reason to live in the city centre, and will be paying next to nothing for the privilege.
Social housing should be the bare minimum to deter lifers and encourage people to work for their own homes. Murphy and his co-living tenements are fine for that

Gemma1982

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

Gumbo

Gemma1982 wrote: »

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

Depends on when they got planning and agreed the Part V allocation.
For example, belltree in Clongriffin, all private but block 2 on Main Street has been entirely built to satisfy the Part V allocation for the whole development.

84 apartments from memory and the Iveagh Trust will take on the management and operation of it.

It may be still there if the developer has a satisfactory site nearby but in Dublin that’s becoming less and less.

Cyrus

Gemma1982 wrote: »

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

Same in our estate completed two years ago

InTheShadows

Gemma1982 wrote: »

Recently moved into a new build estate - houses from 750k upwards. There is no social housing as the developer gave a site in a different area to the council in lieu of providing social housing in the estate. So this loophole still seems to be there.

As long as there is brown envelopes the practice will continue.

Sonny noggs

listermint wrote: »

Except it's the norm on the continent.

Hardly makes it right. Lots of stuff is messed up ‘on the continent’.

Sonny noggs

kceire wrote: »

Sorry to burst your bubble but it’s happening currently. I’ve 2 sites on my books where houses are selling for over €1m.

Both those sites handed over one dwelling each for social housing (Part V).
It’s compulsory and no way around it.

It is happening, doesn’t mean it is right or fair.

hmmm

InTheShadows wrote: »

As long as there is brown envelopes the practice will continue.

It's not brown envelopes, it's the rules. And I agree with the posters who think the idea of handing over million euro houses to social housing is ridiculous, but equally I think the idea of handing over any house for free alongside people who are paying for their own houses is ridiculous - so it can't all be dumped in middle class neighbourhoods. Social housing should be bare minimum standard apartments, and if you want more you have to pay for it.

Cal4567

InTheShadows wrote: »

As long as there is brown envelopes the practice will continue.

Stupid comment and just shows your ignorance re how Part V operates. It is more cost effective for the council in such a high value area such as this to accept the Part V units off site. Similar examples to the recent developments in the docklands.

The Part V cost criteria is based on EUV - existing use value but in very high value areas that is still a very high cost.

voluntary

Irish want more social houses or less social houses? The last I heard was that everyone wanted government to build more social houses?

eviltwin

voluntary wrote: »

Irish want more social houses or less social houses? The last I heard was that everyone wanted government to build more social houses?

Just nowhere near them

voluntary

eviltwin wrote: »

Just nowhere near them

Well, when the crowds shout "build more social houses" then the government listens. If people do not want them, then they should maybe articulate less how much they want to build more social houses.

Be careful what you wish for!

Johouse

Johouse wrote: »

We have been looking at Shankill but are now reading about the 600 units - mainly social and affordable which are planned for Shanganagh. What are people’s view on this development?

It's great, a fantastic location, right on the coast beside a park, sure what's not to love!

Sonny noggs

The ‘forever home’ media blitzes did massive PR damage. Maybe if the media had championed a working couple on low income instead of someone who has never held a job...

InTheShadows

hmmm wrote: »

It's not brown envelopes, it's the rules. And I agree with the posters who think the idea of handing over million euro houses to social housing is ridiculous, but equally I think the idea of handing over any house for free alongside people who are paying for their own houses is ridiculous - so it can't all be dumped in middle class neighbourhoods. Social housing should be bare minimum standard apartments, and if you want more you have to pay for it.

Eh people do pay for the housing You do realise people work in social housing?

Klonker

Social housing should be the most basic, cheapest housing possible, built in separate estates to private housing. Otherwise, where is the incentive to work and better yourself to afford a nicer home?

If all social tenants are salt of earth hard working people like some on here are suggesting then the separate estates won't turn to st!t with anti social behaviour!

InTheShadows

Klonker wrote: »

Social housing should be the most basic, cheapest housing possible, built in separate estates to private housing. Otherwise, where is the incentive to work and better yourself to afford a nicer home?

If all social tenants are salt of earth hard working people like some on here are suggesting then the separate estates won't turn to st!t with anti social behaviour!

Iv'e read back through the thread and nobody has said all social tenants are salt of the earth hard working people. Just like not all private tenants are salt of the earth hard working people.