Pre 63?

“Pre 63 apartments”. I see this phrase on some advertising.

What is it and what does it mean?

Built pre-1963 - when the planning laws were enacted I think.

In 1963 Neil Blaney introduced the Planning Act (thats where the phrase Pre-63 comes from). From that point on we have not had a free market and it has provided ample opportunity for political corruption and monopolisation of land that can be developed (land banking). This is not free-market capitalism, remove planning permission today and the entire edifice that are current property values crumbles and house prices move to reflect their proper utility value (shelter), in such an environment companies that want to build houses must compete on quality if they want to achieve the best price.

Think about it, no-one would build houses where there is no economic need, Apartments and high rise would be built, since people would demand to live near work and services, and the rooms would have sufficient space so there woould be no restrictions on height. You would have to pay proper economic rents for services such as water and waste disposal and there would be an incentive to use these resources efficiently in order to save costs. There would be freedom of movement so if your new job was in Dublin and you are based in Cavan, you could move house easily enough.

The fact is central government planning is inefficient and more than any other factor is responsible for the mess we find ourselves today.

I should have been more specific.

What does it mean if you buy a property which is a house divided into pre 63 apartments?

From 2001

Interestingly since that was published, I’ve seen pre 63 property go for over 25 times earnings

Pre '63 relates to the fact the the current layout or use does not need planning as it was organised in this mannor before 1963.

This generally relates to old period houses that have been subdividied into several units and rented out in poor condition bedsits and flats.

Valuing these properties using a rent multiplier can often be way of the mark as a lot of the properties are purchased to be changed back into a family home, and this gives the property a totaly different value from the exixsting net rent into perpituity.

Another little fact about pre 63 properties is that loads of them were actually changed post 63 but you only need a letter from someone stating that they saw the property in this revised condition before 63. These letters were sometimes signed by people that were still in school prior to 63.

Thanks all.

Just wanted to make sure it didn’t mean there were immovable tenants or some such problem.

under the 2004 PRTA there is no such thing as an immovable residential tenant. there are only Part 4 tenancies and they only last for 4 years. also there are tenants with rights under the 1980 act but after 5 years the 2004 act superceeds the previous acts and they are only givedn Part 4 rights again at best lasting 4 years.

expect to see loads of little old ladies who believed they had life long tenancies being turfed out on the streets in 2009 and their homes being redeveloped

I dug this up in the hope of answering a query.


I can see from above that pre-63 properties don’t presently need to meet the current planning requirements for living spaces.

Whatever new planning law is coming means that the pre-63 properties do need to meet current planning requirements.

Broadly speaking, does anyone know what the key difference is.

In other words, if I have a house on the NCR or SCR with five bedsits, each with a toilet and kitchen unit inside it…what would I need to do to meet current planning requirements…

Yo. Thanks for the help.

I believe this is not completely correct. There are some people in rent-controlled apartments that are in there for life. Was discussed in a different thread that I can’t find…

Read this … dards.html