New Stations

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

Local Housing Infrastructure Activation Fund is paying for works that developers would have been made pay for and in return they have to prove they're offering the houses cheaper.

Remember that "make the developer pay" does just mean "make the house buyers pay"

But were not seen any cheaper houses come on to the market. If anything these houses will see an increase now. People will pay a premium for having this amenity on their step and rightly so but most of that premium should be going towards the infrastructure instead of the developers pocket.

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

But were not seen any cheaper houses come on to the market. If anything these houses will see an increase now. People will pay a premium for having this amenity on their step and rightly so but most of that premium should be going towards the infrastructure instead of the developers pocket.

The houses haven't been built because the supporting infrastructure hasn't been built yet.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

The houses haven't been built because the supporting infrastructure hasn't been built yet.

I understand that. That doesn't excuse the fact that the developer won't be funding this in any way. The houses will be at least 10% higher when built than they would of been without the station in place while the state covers the cost of the station.

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

I understand that. That doesn't excuse the fact that the developer won't be funding this in any way. The houses will be at least 10% higher when built than they would of been without the station in place while the state covers the cost of the station.

Except the planning permission is contingent on the prices being reduced and proof provided of same; and planning would never have been given without the station due to traffic issues. Nothing would have been built - houses or station - if the developer had to build it first.

The fund was set up for a purpose, which it is doing.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

Except the planning permission is contingent on the prices being reduced and proof provided of same; and planning would never have been given without the station due to traffic issues. Nothing would have been built - houses or station - if the developer had to build it first.

The fund was set up for a purpose, which it is doing.

I don't think they can fix the price of the house but instead need to provide x number of affordable, social homes which in turn the developer will just increase the price on the remaining homes anyway. With the current demand on new homes and with the pressure on the government the planning would of got through in some shape or form.

If the developer wasn't happy about funding a station and pulled out I don't think you'd be waiting to long till someone else came along and agreed to it. They'll still make a serious profit and so to will anyone else that buys and sell or leases one of these homes.

L1011

They can and do alter prices on lands which are getting LIHAF support.

Checked the details and in this case (Woodbrook) the cost reduction - which was to be 4300 off the open market price per unit - is being capitalised back in to affordable housing. However this is not the norm; most have an agreed reduction off the OMP. The one local to me is 18k for instance; in lieu of the developers having to build a very expensive bridge over the Sligo line.

This means that if a new 3 bed at an non LIHAF supported site is selling for 325k, the LIHAF site has to sell for 307k.

Basically without this, houses would either not be built, or be delayed for ages, or cost the end purchaser significantly more - possibly enough to push them beyond affordability on normal incomes

https://rebuildingireland.ie/lihaf/ has all the details, albeit very badly laid out.

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

They can and do alter prices on lands which are getting LIHAF support.

Checked the details and in this case (Woodbrook) the cost reduction - which was to be 4300 off the open market price per unit - is being capitalised back in to affordable housing. However this is not the norm; most have an agreed reduction off the OMP. The one local to me is 18k for instance; in lieu of the developers having to build a very expensive bridge over the Sligo line.

This means that if a new 3 bed at an non LIHAF supported site is selling for 325k, the LIHAF site has to sell for 307k.

Basically without this, houses would either not be built, or be delayed for ages, or cost the end purchaser significantly more - possibly enough to push them beyond affordability on normal incomes

https://rebuildingireland.ie/lihaf/ has all the details, albeit very badly laid out.

Completely disagree with this set up.

Essentially the state is subsidising these homes and building them a rail station at the same time. I've no issues with affordable homes ect but the fact where throwing in extras where others would've happily paid a premium for such a set up is a bit of a joke. Regardless what way its dressed up or run the developer is getting a better deal here imo and it's the tax payer who will be ultimately left to pick up the tab when the system requires upgrading.

This site should of been allowed to go ahead with the developer funding the station and affordable housing sought elsewhere.

road_high

A simple Kilkenny East station would be nice to pick up some of the direct Waterford services around the Lavistown loop- won’t happen of course. The government spout non sense about climate change but will never lead and fund hard investment to reduce car use

L1011

IE 222 wrote: »

Completely disagree with this set up.

Essentially the state is subsidising these homes and building them a rail station at the same time. I've no issues with affordable homes ect but the fact where throwing in extras where others would've happily paid a premium for such a set up is a bit of a joke. Regardless what way its dressed up or run the developer is getting a better deal here imo and it's the tax payer who will be ultimately left to pick up the tab when the system requires upgrading.

This site should of been allowed to go ahead with the developer funding the station and affordable housing sought elsewhere.

I see it more as the state providing infrastructure it's meant to for once and not relying on developers to do it as the usual cop out

IE 222

L1011 wrote: »

I see it more as the state providing infrastructure it's meant to for once and not relying on developers to do it as the usual cop out

Unless the bulk of the development is social housing fair enough. Although if it is it should of been built elsewhere and the higher stamp duty and tax returns been used to develop other and extra social housing developments. To me it's a bit like the state funding private schools.

L1011

The extra stamp duty on a 4k dearer house would be 40 quid.