Nimbyism and value of houses.

Flinty997

"...thread on boards, with all due respect could be written by a crank.."

Well ditto.

Also why I skip or glance over long posts and multi quotes. Brevity is clarity.

I was just giving examples I remember from the area, but then I thought logically the odds are high someone has posted a similar example on boards, because it's pretty common. Hey presto they have.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123282176#Comment_123282176

If it was pretty common? The best you could do wouldn't be decade plus old threads that you didn't bother to read would it?

And again, they aren't planning decisions, enforcement orders or development plans. Similar to your Mullingar example, that I linked the planning docs for.

Just one up.in case you missed it. What do you think the decision there should be?

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058403061/nimbyism-and-value-of-houses

It's very hard to link to current news or stories about planning objections and appeals. Almost everything is behind a paywall these days.

But it's not getting better. If they do manage to fix the delays the risk is it will be abused. Because historically that's what developers do.

https://mylittlehome.ie/planning-permission-decline-and-its-impact-on-irelands-housing-crisis/

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123282205#Comment_123282205

Planning documents are all in the public domain. All listed on the relevant local authority website and viewable there. Indeed I've linked to some above.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123282194#Comment_123282194

I didn't "miss" it. You edited the post which has only just refreshed. I'm not glued to this thread or even the phone.

They were first things that weren't paywalled and boards search has been broken for years.

My opinion is ... don't assume a cul de sac (or no through road) will stay one especially if it has field or road or amenities, behind or near it.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123282217#Comment_123282217

Thanks for this, not what you were asked. In that I asked your opinion of the development. Yet you address any assumption that cul de sac's may be permanent or not.

My opinion is ... don't assume a cul de sac (or no through road) will stay one especially if it has field or road or amenities, behind or near it.

I don't know whether or not you feel that is a good thing. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things but my own opinion?

Is that where access to development land is dependent upon opening the end of. A cul de sac, a through road or similar? That as long as the development adequately meets the LA development plan and the area's needs, then it's an acceptable development.

In the case of the Mullingar development, I feel it's a proportionate development and were I living in that cul de sac rather than my own? I'd be disappointed, I'd likely even try get some goodwill from the developer, be it via some groundworks or a gratuity, but? It's a legitimate and worthwhile development.

Flinty997

Again don't know the area. It's not preventing development. On googling (if it's the right place) it seems not to be access but permeability. Something it says they had previous anti social issues with. Can't discuss that as don't know the social history of the area or context. Seems like plenty of alternative routes with paths so permeability isn't really solving a circular route requiring a car.

Seems unfair to not communicate with the existing residents. But in my experience ambushing residents seems to how it's done.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123280666#Comment_123280666

Austria never had a communist government - and being partly occupied by the Soviets for ten years after World War Two doesn't count.

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123282761#Comment_123282761

The Vienna local authority was Socialist led between 1918 & 1934. To the extent that it is remembered as red Vienna.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Vienna

Subsequent to the end of Nazi rule and the occupation period, the Soviets were very influential in local Govt and the services and standards of Red Vienna were a basis for the future governance of the City.

Vienna has a very socialist core. Indeed Austria itself has had decades of Socialist led rule either via majority of coalition led by SPÖ.

Grayson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123281044#Comment_123281044

But you also said that Austria was bombed a lot in both world wars. Tell me again about the World War one bombing campaigns? Fleets of biplanes leveling Vienna one bomb at a time?

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123283413#Comment_123283413

You are correct I should have said WWII and just mentioned how the city was damaged by WWI financially. Either way the local government ended up owning a huge amount of housing as a result of war. They took their housing idea from communist ideals. We can't replicate something that happened close to a century ago and have it active now in Ireland. If you think we can please explain.

CardF

everyone hates a nimby til it comes to their own plot.

another thing is now people are eager to dismiss any genuine reason as just nimbyism.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123283664#Comment_123283664

From what was posted it seemed to have been created from tax and the environment created by the break up of the empire.

Flinty997

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123286179#Comment_123286179

Since appealing to common sense doesn't work I can see why people stop trying and just dig their heels in.

zell12

It will DeVaLuE me house!

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/neighbours-say-granting-of-retention-for-house-almost-twice-as-big-as-planned-will-lower-value-of-homes/a494268127.html

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123295850#Comment_123295850

Devaluation of property is a valid ground for appeal, if you're not happy with that then there are avenues to challenge it/get it changed. I wouldn't be tarring these guys as NIMBYs, in fact they're the opposite. They don't mind the originally applied-for building to go ahead. Article is paywalled, so kinda hard to form an opinion without knowing the ins and outs. However, like all stories, here are two sides to this one.

https://planning.agileapplications.ie/fingal/application-details/97921

One side applied for planning permission, were granted it, then decided to ignore what they got permission for and just built whatever the f… they wanted to build, ignoring the laws of the land and their neighbours' rights.

The other side are exercising their democratic right to not have an unapproved monstrosity built next door to them.

It is quite telling that there are those who would demonise the latter while excusing the former.

We have planning laws for good reason. Just because there is a housing shortage, that doesn't mean we should be letting the cowboys get up to whatever they want. Retention in cases such as this should be given a flat "no". Retention should be primarily reserved for genuine mistakes……"oh, you removed the wall at the front of your garden without realising you needed permission?……okay, here's what you need to do to regularise this", instead of "Oh, you were well aware that you needed permission for this development, but just rode roughshod over the legislation and built it anyway? Sure, g'wan ahead so, that's grand."

If I had my way, it would be …."Permission refused, you have 28 days to put it back the way it was or else the council will demolish it and send you the bill for demolition".

Chancers gonna chance. Rewarding bad behaviour just encourages more bad behaviour.

As a neighbour, there's no way I'd be happy to accommodate someone that has such an obvious and blatant disregard for both planning laws and their community. Lord knows what's gonna happen over the next few years.

Anyone claiming they'd be happy for an extra storey and unapproved balconies overlooking their property is a liar.

Yeah Right

Capture 2.PNG

So not just an extra floor, but an extra floor, with an unauthorised balcony, that looks directly down on top of the entirety of your own back garden? Fcuk these guys. You'd never be able to enjoy your back garden again, this is more than just about devaluation.

political analyst

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123296083#Comment_123296083

Fair enough.

If planning laws are delaying the solving of the housing shortage then why doesn't the government bring in new legislation? After all, that's what is going to be done in England.

Yeah Right

Because, IMO, planning laws aren't causing any major delays. Maybe in one-off cases, but not on the whole.

The primary reason for the housing shortage is because a huge chunk of the private housing stock is being used for public housing, which is an absolute dereliction of duty from the County Councils. Pitting public vs private buyers in bidding wars, folks sleeping outside new build estates, HAP, punitive tax measures on LLs……..these are all contributory factors.

The Government could solve all of this in 18 months, if they wanted. Announce they're building X number of houses in each county, put out a tender, establish contracts and get the experts to start building. By Xmas 2026, there'd be a glut of new properties on the market, supply:demand ratio increases, prices fall (or remain static at the very least). They don't even have to do it themselves, if they incentivised property developers to do it for them. They couldn't be arsed, though.

I wouldn't mind but, for all their faults, the Celtic Tiger Government had the answer to the current problem with the social and affordable housing legislation in the 2000 Planning Act. X% of any new builds HAD to be sold to the Council to be used for social or affordable homes. This meant that for every 200 private houses built, you'd get 20 or so public houses. They'd be mixed in with the private gaffs, discouraging any "new Ballymuns" and, in theory, preventing the anti-social shite that goes on in purely-social housing developments.

It was great.

Then the FF-led government got in bed with the developers, allowed them to buy their way out of the clause by offering a few pieces of silver, and the legislation died on the operating table. The Council got a few bob to squander and no longer had to worry about upkeep/maintenance/administration of the new houses, the buyers didn't have to worry about living next door to the next door to a load of knackers, and the developers were able to recoup the outlay by charging more for the houses with the promise of "no social housing". Everyone's a winner. Except for the poor dopes who are now bidding against the council for those same gaffs and paying twice as much.

There were half a million houses built between 2000 and 2006. The figure for the following 6 year period is less than 190,000. That's about 31,000 per year in the run up to and right the way through the recession. We have only barely recovered to those levels, never mind the previous ones. We're building the same number of houses as we were during the crash. That's why there are delays.

Yeah Right

The developers aren't exactly blameless here either.

They were completely unregulated and shot themselves in the foot. They would establish new companies for each project, build it, then dissolve the company immediately after they were all sold. When issues surface after a few months/years, they just said "tough ****, that company is dead and has been for years, you can't chase us for anything, even though we're building block 5 right next door, as that's a 'different' company".

After Priory Hall*, new regulations were introduced to prevent a recurrence. Two new roles were established in any new builds: 1) Project Supervisor Design Phase (PSDP) and 2) Project Supervisor Construction Stage (PSCS). While it was still at at the architect stage, someone had to sign off on the plans and say "these plans are in accordance with all laws and regulations". While it was being built someone had to sign off and say "this construction is being carried out according to the plans that were earlier signed off on as being compliant". It meant that, should anything ever come to light in the future, that the person who signed off on it could be chased through the courts.

The developers fought against this. They didn't want to have this hanging over them. Most claimed, in fact, that they were already doing it. The regs got passed, the legislation changed and all of a sudden, the people who were signing off on these projects started charging an arm and a leg for it……………even though they were already doing it, remember? The cost got passed on to the buyers, of course.

This is indicative of what they want removed when they say "the planning is causing the housing shortage". They laws were changed to counter their never ending appetite for profit, and they want them revoked. Same with pyrite, they'd give anything to be able to go back to the good old days. Cavity blocks are formed and left to dry. They're supposed to be cured for a few days, then a sample tested for pyrite. Find anything and the whole batch gets dumped. There were tales during the Tiger of blocks being formed and immediately shipped off site, before they were even cured, never mind tested. 18 months later, the whole of NCD is riddled with it and nobody is held accountable.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123296687#Comment_123296687

There does seem to be a huge issue about the liability of developers and the various professionals (architects, engineers, surveyors) involved in process. It was explained to me years ago that the professionals had to keep up their indemnity insurance cover basically for ever to have cover for historical work, which seems crazy.

Surely the insurance you paid at the time would cover the liability for work done at that time?

Thargor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123281065#Comment_123281065

They did manage to kill tht road though ddnt they?

banie01

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123296823#Comment_123296823

Nope, the road from Coonagh Cross to Knocklasheen is being built at the moment. There was a hiatus after roadbridge went bust and the road was retendered.

There is a hold on proceeding from Knocklasheen on to the Mackey roundabout. Whether that proceeds is still up in the air. 8d lean towards it proceeding as long as despite part of the road crossing a flood plain, it has huge potential. Both in alternate access to the University, to East Clare and the Technology park as well as land banks for Commercial, Industrial & residential that are IMO easier served by existing services than further building outside the proposed LNDR routes

Boggles

Only know of one group of residents who objected to a housing estate for the sole reason that it was being built on a flood plain.

It got planning.

The new development doesn't flood but the new flood plain became the existing houses.

Homes and lives ruined, developer long gone. Council scratching it's collective hole.

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123296766#Comment_123296766

They brought this on themselves. They were self-regulating and they made a complete hames of it through greed and avarice. The sole reason the PSDP and PSCS stuff was brought in was because they were fleecing people. McFeely, the developer behind PH is an ex PIRA terrorist who served time for robbing Post Offices. He declared bankruptcy when the PH stuff really kicked off, then some plumber found a quarter of a million stashed under his bath. If anyone is angry about the new regs brought in, they need to look inside the glass house before they start throwing rocks. I'd imagine it pales in comparison to anger surrounding the families, marriages and lives that were destroyed as a result of McFeely cutting corners, however.

Surely the insurance you paid at the time would cover the liability for work done at that time?

You'd think so, but insurance companies are another crowd who are lower than a snake's ballbag and have zero issues with milking their customers and the taxpayers for every drop they can get.

Have a search online for Homebond.

Mandatory insurance for structural defects that you MUST take out when starting a new build, which is supposed to cover for these types of eventualities. Everyone in the country, including McFeely, was mandated to get this insurance if starting a new project. Same as you or I having to get car insurance, except there was only one supplier in town.

When the pyrite stuff happened, they started paying out on the 'isolated cases'. As the scale of the problem became apparent, they closed ranks, refused to pay anything out (including to those who they had already approved payouts to), blamed the quarries and then went into hiding. They refused an invitation to explain themselves in front of various Government committees. this is another, separate issue. They were invited to explain themselves. INVITED. Like a fecking 5 year old's birthday party. Big Phil Hogan (another bottom feeder) was too busy trying to make sure the story wasn't attached to him at the time, to be bothered actually helping out the electorate, the unwieldy slug that he is.

Before writing to customers, the company (Homebond) contacted the Department of the Environment to brief them on their position.

A departmental spokesman said that while Environment Minister Phil Hogan was aware of the problem facing homeowners it was essentially a civil matter between private parties.

Source

The guillotine would be taking it easy on the lot of them.

The biggest kick in the teeth is that it's STILL MANDATORY!!! Banks wouldn't (and still won't) give out mortgages without it in place. I know someone who was shafted by the pyrite scandal, lost his betty swollocks on the whole fiasco, got back on his feet and had to pay homebond again when he built his latest house.

fonecrusher1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123274230#Comment_123274230

Yup and unfortunately these days its the roll of a dice regarding who you'll get landed next to you. Could get lucky … could get the McScangers in next to you who don't give two sh!ts about how they maintain their property.