Great headline …No timeline.
Surely giving “free” land to some developers will make other schemes less viable? (e.g. Cherrywood.)
I would hope that the “free” part won’t happen in practice - it will be in exchange for equivalent value in social housing, or something.
I share everyone’s doubt about whether this will be done sensibly and competently, but if I was minister I’d definitely be doing this (alongside a major public building program, which should obviously be done as well).
Dear me, it ain’t difficult.
(1): Local authority owns land, but doesn’t have technical competence or resources to build houses.
(2) Commercial builders have skills and means to build houses.
(3): Local authority invites tenders from commercial builders to build houses.
(4): Commercial builders build houses, take profit from bids made in commercial environment.
(5): Local authority now owns land and houses.
(6): Local authority (a) sells some land and houses on open market, while (b) retaining other land and houses on which they stand and (c) renting them to tenants.
(7): Local authority pays commercial builders with proceeds from (6a) and funds upkeep of (6b) with proceeds from (6c).
It’s not rocket science.
I’d much rather it resulted in lower-cost housing for the productive/employed section of the population - who pay for their own housing needs from after-tax income, rather than handing out a large chunk of free housing for the welfare lifers. Remember, all of this promised “social” housing bonanza is going to generate huge maintenance costs, including insurance, without generating any property tax income for local authorities. We’re looking at a massive transfer of cash from the working poor and middle-income groups to the permanently idle,whose numbers can only grow given the generosity of Irish welfare…
Or it takes the people who would otherwise be in subsidised rental accommodation and puts them in purpose built social housing? Cheaper for the state, and takes pressure off the rental market?
Not that I altogether disagree with your cynicism towards wealth transfer through social housing (the selloffs are pretty scandalous in my view), but I think you’re possibly being a little knee-jerky here. Let’s see what happens, and rip them to shreds here in 36 months time when the state has handed over millions in state assets to enrich builders and received little societal benefit in return
This level of capacity in financial analysis and procurement is non-existent in most local authorities though.
What about profit for the developer? Poor guys can’t be expected to get involved otherwise.
Looks like a bit of a stand-off in Cherrywood over “affordable” housing funding. Not surprising really - the last thing the developers want for this prime site is for it to become known as a largely council estate which is well possible. (At the launch when I asked in front of scores of people how much social housing was included in the plans, I was taken aside, spoken to in hushed tones and informed that “it hadn’t been decided yet”.
The Council basically want purchasers of private housing to subsidise those getting free housing. (I don’t buy the “affordable housing” bull.) If the council have a fund of millions to spend, it should be spread among everyone - especially those who have contributed most to the fund in the first place.
irishtimes.com/news/consume … -1.3174992
More than €15 million in State funding needed for the development of thousands of new homes in south Dublin will be withheld if deals are not reached on the price and number of affordable homes.
Local authorities were last March allocated €226 million to provide infrastructure, such as roads and water mains, necessary to facilitate the development of housing on privately owned lands.
IIRC it is 10% - the developer is allowed to recover his costs plus 8% margin.
The council decide the building spec for social and affordable element.
Negotiation often get tied up in the location of S&A element - council don’t want them all located in single block/location but want to have a different build spec to private sales.
Delivery of S&A is also an issue - council prefer this to be back loaded. This means the developers funding costs are higher as he does not recover his site/groundwork costs until much later (financing costs are not an allowable expense).
Looks like there’s a 40% figure under this particular scheme…however as can be seen below there are no takers so far. Developers don’t want social/affordable housing mixed in with private developments. Simple as that.
independent.ie/opinion/analy … 09845.html
*Why have no deals been finalised in relation to affordable housing to allow the money be drawn down? The fund was announced in August last year, submissions were invited by the following October where details of affordability were to be set out, and the monies were allocated late last March. Why the delay?
In return for the cash, councils and developers are expected to ensure that at least 40pc of all homes for sale would trade hands at prices at least 10pc less than that which could be fetched on the open market. In Dublin, they should be €300,000 or less.
A second option would be to impose a cost reduction to be spread across the entire housing development. What’s abundantly clear is that some councils and developers are baulking at this requirement, particularly the first option.
Not surprised they can’t reach agreement - 40% is a lot
Builders (presumably reflecting views of purchasers) do not want developments with a large social contingent.
The policy establishment (local authorites, Department of Housing) is obsessed with social engineering and not producing large new estates with only social tenants.
The current stand-off means that neither is getting built to any extent.
If policy was serious about the provision of private **and **public housing, Part V would be ditched and local authorities would go back to building large-scale social-only developments.
In the meantime, local authorities are quietly spending their funds buying up existing houses - in Dublin City it’s a few hundred a year - instead of actually building new ones.
The new minister has maybe three more years in the job - it will be interesting to see if he makes much of a dent in policy in this area over the next while.