# New Affordable Housing for First Time Buyers



## Gradboy (7 May 2002)

Fingal County Council are set to release over 200 units in Blanchardstown next Saturday to those people on their shared ownership-affordable housing scheme. The units are going for €106K for a one-bedroom apartment to €127K for a 3-bed house. While people on Fingal's affordable housing list will get the opportunity to purchase the houses first, I understand that part of the total development of 700+ units will be sold on the market.

I was wondering what people's thoughts were in relation to:

1) the desirability of the Mulhudart/Blanchardstown area.

2) the likely effect 700+ units coming onto the market will have on other starter schemes in the area that are currently selling far above this price.

3) whether it is wise, from a purely economic point of view, for a private individual to buy into these socially mixed schemes, i.e. will the property trade at a discount in the future? 

4) whether it is likely that the introduction of such schemes coupled with the 20% social/affordable provision in new developments will force starter home prices down across the greater Dublin area.

gradboy


----------



## Home Buyer (9 May 2002)

*Social Housing*

1. The lack of any proper planning (e.g. amenities, public transport etc.) in the Mulhudart/Blanchardstown area is fast turning this area into a ghetto.

2. 700+ additional units to the overall housing supply are welcome, especially given the current shortage in housing. But 700+ units in this area are unwelcome - they are characterless developments which are adding to an already characterless area and creating a concrete jungle effect on the edge of Dublin city.

3. Cheap social housing will undoubtedly add further to the ghetto-isation of this area. I think it would be foolish to buy into such a scheme unless the properties were selling at prices that are substantially below current market prices of similar (but non social housing) developments in the area. The future value of a property is largely dependant on it's location and desirability. The value of all properties in developments containing social housing will be adversely impacted by their lack of desirability.

4. Second hand properties in non social housing developments will increase in value, whereas new schemes containing social housing could well see prices dropping. This adds further to the ghetto-isation of the area.

The solution is to abandon the social housing provision in new developments and to force developers (by law) to develop the countless number of derelict sites in the middle of the inner city. Proper planning of new developments in the inner city will create a desirable living and working environment in the city centre and will increase the supply of housing, helping to stabilise property prices. It will also mean that people are not forced to live in characterless ghetto's on the edge of the city.


----------



## Felix (9 May 2002)

*Social Housing*

Hi Homebuyer,

All areas mature in time. Blanchardstown will too. It has to its advantage easy access to the city, Shopping Centre, Phoenix Park. Having worked in Dublin City for the past 20 years, I still find it hard to reconcile that people would want to live in the City. 10 years ago the only people who lived in the City were the Simon Community. Do you not think the large amount of apartments with very little square footage in the city will only appeal to Singles, Immigrants and the Elderly?
Times and trends change. But remember children and traffic don't mix.


----------



## Home Buyer (10 May 2002)

*Social Housing*

Felix

You say you find it "hard to reconcile that people would want to live in the City" - a lot of people buying their first homes are young people in their 20's and 30's who are working in the city centre. In addition, they are likely to socialise in the city centre (variety of pubs, restaurants and other attractions the city centre offers). A lot of the city centre is in a derelict state because our planners have adopted an attitude similar to yours. However, other cities in Europe e.g. Copenhagen, Barcelona etc. have taken a pro-active approach to city living and have re-developed large derelict areas with fantastic results. This has the added advantage of reducing traffic and commuter times and improving people's quality of life.

You also say "remember children and traffic don't mix" and I agree. The current traffic situation in the city centre is unacceptable but measures such as the new port tunnel will help to alleviate this. However, a lot more needs to be done, including active discouragement of car use in the city centre through the provision of greatly improved public transport alternatives. 

My point is that a lot of new home buyers who would like to live close to work and near centres of social activity in the city centre, can not, because there is little incentive for or pressure on developers to release derelict land for development.

People change homes, on avergae about three times in their lives. The present situation of trying to encourage first time buyers on low incomes to take up social housing in new developments on the edge of the city centre only creates a doughnut effect, which is widely recognised as having ruined many American cities. If allowed to continue, the sprawl of concrete development will spread even further into the countryside, worsening traffic and commuting times, and further reducing people's quality of life. 

You also say "times and trends change" and I agree completely. What we need is a change in attitude away from characterless suburban ghetto-isation with it's sanitised shopping centres, boring bars etc. to pro-active city centre renewal which will offer city dwellers a more varied, exciting and much improved quality of life.


----------



## CM (10 May 2002)

*Social Housing*

Surely this topic is more suited to the  forum than here?


----------



## Bear (10 May 2002)

*Second Hand versus Starter Home Prices*

Home Buyer,

you make the point that due to the 20% social/affordable provision in new developments, second hand house prices are likely to increase while the resale value of new developments could well fall.

I disagree that such a split between second hand and new houses could take place. 

If 20% of a scheme is being sold at cost price to teachers/nurses/civil servants etc. then the bottom of the new starter market is likely to collapse, These are the very people that borrow to the hilt to afford some 2 bed box being sold at the moment.  Why pay market price when you can get a place at cost price from the council. Most of these people will qualify fo rthe scheme.

As the majority of these people are likely to have been renting, as they purchase their own homes, the secondhand house market is likely to see large decreases in prices as demand for rental accomodation dries up and supply increases due to all these first time buy to let investors entering the market.


----------



## non civil servant (10 May 2002)

*Question*

"If 20% of a scheme is being sold at cost price to teachers/nurses/civil servants etc. then the bottom of the new starter market is likely to collapse"

Is it only people in the civil service who are in low paid jobs?.At least teachers/nurses/civil servants have job security.


----------



## GeoffreyOD (10 May 2002)

*Social Housing*

In Blanchardstown there is more danger of second hand houses dropping in price than these new affordable houses.
Having looked around Blanchardstown and Mulhuddart many of the secondhand houses selling for €30,000 more than comprable affordable houses are in very poor repair and the choice of one of these houses or an affordable house is a no-brainer.

Mulhuddart is another story, once oversupply is reached prices will probably fall for every type of house in this area as there are no amenities closeby - the only thing keeping prices bouyant at present is a lack of supply.


----------



## Bear (10 May 2002)

*Low Paid Jobs*

non civil servant,

When I say low pay,  I mean in relation to house affordability. People on Fingals affordable housing scheme have to earning at least €24K pa., but no more than €32k. This income bracket tends to include teachers, nurses, civil servants etc. The reaon for the minimum threshold is that the council provides the mortgage for the house purchase. Anyone earning below the €24K mark tends to be shown the shared ownership scheme, where the person only buys part of the house and rents the rest from the Council.


----------



## non civil servant (10 May 2002)

*missing the point*

Its a bit of a bugbear with me that people constantly refer to teachers/guards etc inability to buy houses as an indication they are badly paid compared to the private service.Actually I'd say most teachers/guards/ are earning more than € 32,000 unlike many people holding down office/factory jobs.I don't deny that some people in the private service are high earners but don't forget that the average industrial wage is only €30,000.


----------



## GeoffreyOD (10 May 2002)

*Agreed, too true*

'Poor pay' is a line being spun in order to jack up wage increases in the benchmarking process.

Many highly trained people in the private sector don't earn much more than the av. indust wage but they don't have a union to fight their corner for them.


----------



## sfag (13 May 2002)

*Zone everything.*

The only Garda and teachers that I know that would qualify are junior ones a junior anything is always lowly paid - for a while. A gardas basic pay only makes up half his packet. A teachers pay packet is for half a years work - put them out woek in the summer.

The best way to introduce low priced houses is to drive the price of sites down. The scarcity is an artificial creation created by planning departments taking years to give detail planning approval. It should take a week or too. Too much deliberation is made over objections.

Zone everything for miles near urban areas then force the owners to sell on the open market. The oversupply will create very cheap site prices and could half the price of a house. Make a rule that half the land is sold to individuals. That way we will get individual designs instead of homegenous boxes. Plan the whole village/amenity thing from the onset and force everybody to stick with it. We have 3.75 million people in the 26 counties sharing a very large island. Building land should not be the price it is. 
In countries where planning permission is easy to achieve building land is cheap and house price inflation rises only at the cost of building inflation which is around 5%pa. 

Also make it a rule that a house has to be a minimum of 2000square feet. The 4 bed 1350 boxes that make up 90% of houses built are toooooo small for a family. The 1350 sq ft house is pegged at the absolute maximum borrowing capacity of most wage earners. Given that wont change if you set a larger minimum size the builders will have to offer more for the same money- else they wont sell.


----------



## Bear (14 May 2002)

*Falling Prices*

Zoning land is exactly what Fingal County Council did. They zoned it and sold it cheaply to the developer under the condition that 2/3 of the scheme be sold at cost price. Once this approach is taken on board by the other Dublin councils, coupled with the 20% affordable provision on new developments, prices of starter  homes are likely to be driven down.

Even without such measures, prices should drop as a result of:

1) The likely income tax increases over the next 2-3 years reducing disposable income.

2) the rise in interest rates.

3) Increased unemployment as a result of Euro appreciation.


----------



## zag (14 May 2002)

*Re: Falling Prices*

sfag - oh, if only it were as simple as you make out.  You need to start by remembering that the planning process has a statutory time limit on it.  If you submit an application to your planning authority and don't hear back with a yes or no within a certain period (something like 60 days) then you have a de facto approval.  The planning authorities cannot take forever to decide.  However, they can ask for 'further information' which can extend the period, but again this period is limited by statute.

Of course, someone (like An Taisce or your neighbour) could appeal the approval and then you are in to what can be a long process with an Bord Pleanala.  The local authority cannot (as far as I know) appeal their own decision to grant an approval.  They either approve or deny within the time limit and that's it.  Actually I seem to recall something strange in Bray or Wicklow where the councillors appealed a planning decision by the relevant authority, but this appeal was taken as individuals and not as the council.

If you think that appeals to An Bord Pleanala are a waste of time, just remember you might need them when someone discovers a loophole in one of the regulations and reckons they can get away with an abbatoir next door to you.   The appeals process isn't just used by An Taisce to block bungalows you know . . 

z.


----------



## sfag (14 May 2002)

*taking forever*

But that is just the point. Why should an appeals process take for ever. How's about a week. An objecter should have their reasons set out any any paper work backing it up before objecting. I know one impending development of 24 sites that has taken nearly 3 years. Yes there are several repeat objections but they are all summarily dismissed or taken on board somethink that should take a few weeks. Its not a particularily controversial development but never the less its takes forever. If that happens accross the board then no wonder there is a supply shortage. Does anybody have an idea of how long a new housing estate takes from initial submission to full approval. I reckon a minimum of 2 years and that is everything going smoothly. The fact that it has been zoned primary residential to begin with should speed the whole process along but its still takes forever.


----------



## sfag (15 May 2002)

*"Sicko delays cancer building process"*

or something similiar was the headline in yesterdays Irish Times. It backs up what I have been saying.  It was a front page story about a bogus objection to the building of a cancer treatment unit after planning permission had been granted. Even though the objecter did not exist and his reasons were made up it took the planners 6 months to find out. How's about same day turn aound ??.

The hoaxer was described in unfavourable terms but surely its it the planners slowess and adherence to cumbersome red tape that really caused the delay.


----------



## zag (16 May 2002)

*Re: "Sicko delays cancer building process"*

Uh huh.

"surely its it the planners slowess and adherence to cumbersome red tape that really caused the delay."

So by your reckoning, people who are supposed to make decisions by the book should throw the book out the window.

As I said elsewhere you might appreciate the appeals process some day when someone decides to build a slaughterhouse next door.  Would you really like the planners to spend one day on that, maybe miss your objection due to timing issues, maybe not be able to find your name on the register of electors and decide you don't exist ?

I agree that the particular situation in Limerick is a scandal, but that is down to the actions of the 'person' who objected and not the process.

z


----------



## sfag (16 May 2002)

*Speed Freak*

"I agree that the particular situation in Limerick is a scandal, but that is down to the actions of the 'person' who objected and not the process"

Not so. Step 1 should be find out if the objector really exists and maybe from now on it will. Should take a couple of days. Perhaps even a phone call. Some objectors play the numbers game where they can get several people, imaginery or otherwise to object. It then looks like there are not the only "crank". Most 'submissions' have their homework done by professionals before application. 

My issue is the time it takes. If someone objects it goes to the bottom of the to do pile. It should go to the top and be given an initial judging. If that happened the Limerick situation would not have happened. 
Eg apart from checking out the objectors the engineer that handled the submission would have a fair idea that the reasons given were crap and probably communicated this to the planners. But nothing can stop the red tape process once it leaves the docks. It's like one of those big oil tankers that take 12 miles to stop. 

Hoaxers to planning boards and newspapers do what they do for fun. I have a couple in the past. Their reasoning has to be verbose and completly illogical and therein lies the joke. Its on the planners for not spotting it.

Wasen't the Limerick hoaxer saying something about the cancer unit having to be encased in copper. Pleeeeeese.


----------



## zag (16 May 2002)

*Limerick case*

I have no idea about the details of the particular case, but I don't think that your idea about personal verification holds up.

Are you suggesting that before any objection is processed the existence of the objector must be verified ?

I agree this would be a good idea in principle, but I think it would add an extra level of red tape to the process, not remove one.  For every hoaxer caught there would be many, many legitimate objections held up while the existence of the objector was verified.

Anyway, if every objection goes to the top of the pile it would be just as easy to obstruct the system.  Simply keep sending in bogus applications which keep going to the top of the pile for verification and nothing lower down the pile will ever make its way to the top.

Add them to the bottom of the pile and everything is processed in turn.  It might take time, but it will be processed.

z


----------



## Tommy (16 May 2002)

*Re: Limerick case*

A very simple solution to the Limerick case - why not make it mandatory to submit, with every planning objection, a  copy of the passport or driving licence of the objector plus 1 utility bill to prove address?

It works for opening a bank account or phone account - it should work here also.  People will not make hoax objections if they know they can be traced and exposed afterwards.


----------



## rainyday (16 May 2002)

*Re: Limerick case*

Sounds sensible - though I have heard complaints against the banks from non-driving non-visiting-abroad non-home-owners who had problems supplying the documentation you mention!


----------



## bubbles (17 May 2002)

*Identity cards?*

Dare I say it?
In France, everybody has an identity card, with a photograph.
It gets rid of the problem highlighted by Rainbyday.

Having said that, I prefer to live in Ireland than in France, the bureaucracy is diabolical, although the traffic and the prices in Ireland may tilt the balance in favour of France pretty soon!
Bubbles


----------

