Owen Keegan, DCC manager, sneers at homeless students

Where is the full letter?

I haven't seen the SU letter to which this is a reply, but taken in isolation Keegan's comment looks odd. If there were excess profits to be made in the PBSA ("purpose built student accommodation") market, developers would hardly be looking for change-of-use to take their properties out of that market and into the short-stay tourism market. The Union's point is much more likely to have been that developers are attracted by excess profits in the short-stay tourism market, surely?

Aside from that, Keegan's comment is mean-spirited and stupid. Excess profits in any market are only available to those with capital to invest in that market; the whole objection to excess profits is that they are the result of a market distortion which operates to transfer wealth from customers/consumers to capitalists. The SU, as a not-for-profit student body, represents and advocates for the customer/consumer stakeholders, not the capitalists. Keegan is not so stupid as to not understand this, so I take his comment to be a sneer, and a nasty one, suggesting that the Union is wasting its time advocating for customers/consumers, and should align itself with the capitalists who benefit from excess profits.

It gives the impression that it has never crossed Keegan's mind that there might be anything wrong with excess profits, or that anyone else might think that there was.

How likely are they have been aware of the application in time to object?

It's very easy for people to not notice when site notices have been erected, especially in urban areas. Yes, they have to be put in specific places, but you're talking about a piece of A4 paper stuck on a wall or a gate. Very easy to walk past and not read. Likewise, there are numerous papers the newspaper notice could have been in and a Student Union aren't responsible for trying to read all of them every day.

Regardless, just because someone doesn't object, doesn't mean "Everyone's fine with it, plough ahead". The planners still have to make a decision based on what's in the public interest, which means they would have had to have considered the detrimental effects granting the application would have on student housing regardless of whether or not the student union made an objection saying "Please consider the detrimental effects granting the application would have on student housing." Which means it's very likely that even if the student union did object, it likely would have been granted anyway (though the student union could then object to An Bord Pleanala, slowing the process down etc).

Owen Keegan is completely in the wrong here, and not just for his attitude. But it's his attitude that shows his position has to now be strongly considered and assessed by those with the power to remove him.

Suspect there may be more to this than one side of what appears to be a lengthy back and forward exchange.

They really don't do themselves any favours by virtue of the fact they didn't object when they had the chance.

As far as planning is concerned, if you don't make a submission you quite literally have no right to later complain or appeal if it does not go in your favour.

You don't have to hang around sites or scour newspapers, every county council must publish all planning correspondence online on their website.

A quick search every week or two of the local authority's planning portal would have shown the application going up with several weeks before submissions close to put in a response.

There are even free services out there that will do that search automatically for you and send you an e-mail as soon as something gets added.

So Ruairí Power is whinging about some planning that they never bothered objecting to when the opportunity was there, Keegan appears to be correcting him on some simple points of fact, and since Powers has no valid answer his response is to share that correspondence with the media?

Its not Keegan who is coming off as a dick there.

For purpose built student accommodation (likely built with tax breaks), how would anyone expect to need to monitor DCC's website to make sure that there isn't any change of use applications to change it over to Air BnB? And how could that have gotten permission, even without an objection? Is there a need for short term accommodation for tourists during a global pandemic? Is the need so great that it is more important than the shortage of accommodation of the type that the building was specifically constructed (and granted planning permission) for?

That's the Minister for Housing overriding the planning system and it's processes.

Don't get me wrong the planning system in this country is dysfunctional in many ways but there is a process here.

If everyone could complain retrospectively about planning applications then absolutely nothing would get built in this country.

Sort of like certain parties lambasting the government about a shortage of housing whilst simultaneously objecting against the granting of planning permission for housing.

And based on the track record of how the Housing Minister(s) has handled the rental crisis, expect his department to make a complete hash of this too.

Welcome to boards :D

I'd assume that anyone who saw that advertised and planned and permitted purpose built 'student accommodation' designed specifically for purpose in its entire layout and most likely benefiting from tax breaks would have needed to be monitoring. On what metric this change got clearance is astounding I'm personally trying to understand how this was allowed. Did it go to a vote ? Councilors if they were involved should have to publically explain their thinking .

This is subversion of the planning process.