Correct - it was originally pushed in via Dublin city I if I remember right around 2007, and when the Greens got into govt year it eventually got onto binding ministerial guidelines. It was only one of a number of "improvements" to standards mind you, at a time that also included a mandated increase in minimum size to 55m2 for 1 bed units, with additional requirement that a "majority" exceed this already gargantuan size by 10%.what is dual aspect...i havent heard of that ?....is it relating to the whether the user is disabled or something ?
According to an appeal I read through from ABP last year there was no minimum size in the 1990s. Typically 1 bed units were sized from 30-40m2, mostly in the region of 37-38m2 (giving you a unit sized (5 to 6)x(7 to 8)m2. Luxury units were big, budget units were small. Minimum size of 45m2 came in DCC early 00s, and then in 2007 someone had the bright idea of imposing a minimum size of 55m2. Unsurprisingly, new apartment building collapsed pretty soon after that. The 2015 change allowed a minimum studio size of 40m2.Thanks. I can see why North facing appmts should have a east or west side , but otherwise seems a rolls royce idea.
any spec for the min size ?
Part V did not "abolish" directly building social housing - it was not designed to do that. That happened as a result of unintended consequences as suddenly the councils basically had to be offered proportion of every new scheme.However it is arguable that rather than abolish directly building social housing and largely replacing it with part V, they could have changed how they accomplished it. Building 1200 homes in one estate immediately raises red flags. It is very unusual for privately developed estates to be built to this scale. Estates are usually split into smaller scale of 50-200 houses, even if they are right beside each other. This is to help create a sense of belonging to the local, smaller, community and to localise services for these estates eg shops, creches etc.
And yet this exists almost everywhere in Dublin especially since the late 90s and even before that - its a direct result of developers having bought large land banks in the distant past and LAs are not happy at the idea of piecemeal development on such lands. The council of course did the same over time for exactly the same reason - just look at the huge size of Marino! Often large scale council builds were a response to very pressing local needs.Obviously building one ginormous estate, likely with sparse facilities and then capping the income level of people there to mostly unemployed is going to turn out terribly. That doesn't mean the government should have stopped direct building. The could have split it into smaller local estates, supported by localised facilities. Then they could have allowed renters across a broader range of incomes to rent it, so by choice it would become a mixed income community. Essentially what they do in Vienna.
Nobody "caps" provision of social housing to the unemployed. It happens as a result of demand being far above provisioning. If there was far more housing available, there would be a case for housing working people as we would not allocate housing to those less in need ahead of the underpriviliged.Instead they continued to cap the provision of social houses to mostly unemployed. (Although I will give them credit that the most recent income cap increases have greatly raised this.) Then sprinkled these people amongst private estates using part V. Great if the tenants are nice. But if you have the few same trouble makers who gave the old social housing states a bad name, now you've just spread the misery to John and Mary who are drowning in half a million euro of mortgage debt to live in the identical 2/3 bed house. If there are no provisions to effectively deal with this anti social behaviour, little is done. The police think it's a civil matter, unless serious assault or damage is involved. The council don't want to hear it as they have to house them somewhere, so evictions just cause them more problems. The trouble making tenants know it and realise they have nothing to lose. Worst case they go to prison for a few years (publicly funded) and then they have to be housed again when they come out.
They are not just ignored - they show up at TDs constituency clinics every week - there's a particular case in a very expensive new build development a few km from me where one social allocation home went to a family who are absolutely tormenting the others who spent figures over 600k for the privilege of being driven mad by this family. But then again, schemes can find a neighbour among them who is equally awful who bought their home or rented it privately. And having had very bad tenants beside me in cheap rentals, it really isn't great even if you are only paying a modest rent, your life is still made a misery.Essentially anti social behaviour is blamed for the failings of the old council house estates. Yet little was actually done to deal with this. Instead part V helps spread it out, so statistically it looks a lot nicer, than having pockets of concentration. The actual people living in these anti social situations can just be ignored. I would bet it's not the majority of politicians living in the making of their own policies. If you were living in a situation similar to John and Mary above, it would be a lot easier to stomach if you knew you were also paying 10-15% of your income on the home. It's a lot less easier to stomach when they are forking out two grand in mortgage and fees and the trouble tenants are paying 10-15% of net income.
This already exists: its exactly where the bulk of "affordable housing" comes from. It comes directly from the part V allocation. Part V stipulates "social and affordable", not just social. Where did you think "affordable housing" was coming from?Another issue arising now is some councillors calling for a scheme similar to the tenant purchase scheme to be set up for part V houses. Allowing part V housing tenants to buy the homes at a substantial discount. Thankfully this is being opposed by some politicians. This would be another unjust policy and who knows if it makes it across the line one day. Essentially the government buying out private homes and giving it away at a discount, to the detriment of every mortgaged private purchaser in the estate, who gets no discount.
Correct - case since 2019 - its because 40% of our carbon emissions come from our homes, and it forces the arm of developers to build to that spec or higher. One of the rationales also is to remove solid fuel heating from new builds - though of course that won't stop a buyer from installing a wood burning stove subsequently. I'm guessing this is forcing the costs onto developers and buyers rather than trying to do something about the 16% of the population who rely entirely on solid fuels to heat their homes.All new builds in the UK have to at least C rated, with the majority built A or B. Without reading building regs it's hard to tell which rating corresponds to our rating. They go A, B, C, D etc. we go A1, A2, A3, B1, B2, B3 etc. However they have signed up to the same contractual carbon targets we have, and if they don't meet them they'll be hit with the same massive fines.
40m2 is the minimum size for a purpose studio apartment, but very few of these actually get built.I didnt mention area....what is the min size of a single 1bed studio appmt. For example, I used to live in a 29.4m2 appmt 20yrs ago.
clearly like everything else in life SIZE MATTERS! - but there isnt any difficulty in a single person living in a 30m2 appmt -if its properly designed
It effectively made apartment building entirely unviable for quite a long time. After the The Elysian was finished in Cork in 2008, no apartment development of similar scale was built in Cork for over 12 years.It's been a while since I looked in detail, dual aspect came up as a bugbear, as it had big implications for the layout of complexes and how many apartments could be fit in.
How is it an unintended consequence when it was designed to operate in that manner? Today direct building (by tender) of social housing can be organised by local authorities under part 8. But part V was designed to be the main avenue for provision of social housing. This is what was designed to replace the need for direct building.Part V did not "abolish" directly building social housing - it was not designed to do that. That happened as a result of unintended consequences as suddenly the councils basically had to be offered proportion of every new scheme.
It was essentially capped by low ceilings on income levels to be eligible for a social housing . Then from that pool there is a system of deciding who is most "in need".Nobody "caps" provision of social housing to the unemployed. It happens as a result of demand being far above provisioning. If there was far more housing available, there would be a case for housing working people as we would not allocate housing to those less in need ahead of the underpriviliged.
They are not just ignored - they show up at TDs constituency clinics every week - there's a particular case in a very expensive new build development a few km from me where one social allocation home went to a family who are absolutely tormenting the others who spent figures over 600k for the privilege of being driven mad by this family. But then again, schemes can find a neighbour among them who is equally awful who bought their home or rented it privately. And having had very bad tenants beside me in cheap rentals, it really isn't great even if you are only paying a modest rent, your life is still made a misery.
It's not the same. It used to be pre crash. In the current affordable housing scheme the government take an equity share in your house. For example if the discount is 20%, they own 20% of that house, forever. If you die they'll take their 20% share back. After 40 years you have to pay the government out of their stake although I don't know how they plan to enforce this. Also if the price of your house goes up, the amount you owe the government goes up too, as it's a fixed percentage of the market value at all times. For example if on a 400k property they give you an 80k discount and after 5 years the market value is 500k and you want to pay off your share, it would now by 100k.This already exists: its exactly where the bulk of "affordable housing" comes from. It comes directly from the part V allocation. Part V stipulates "social and affordable", not just social. Where did you think "affordable housing" was coming from?
Interesting !. The 29.4m2 appmt I lived in was in Makelankatu Helsinki, a working class district. The appartments were built in 1930s. Despite its small size, one had access to a basement for washing machine/drying/storage of bikes, sauna. In the loft we had a small 4mq cage area where you could store your junk ...like vinyl records for one!40m2 is the minimum size for a purpose studio apartment, but very few of these actually get built.
You were more likely living in a pre-63 converted unit - as these were ostensibly converted without planning permission before the 1963 planning act came into force, there was no minimum standards in place, and therefore no minimum size.
* Note: a lot of so-called "pre 63" conversions are actually illegal conversions done long after 1963, but thats a generally understood term for an internal subdivision into homes without planning approvals. In other countries sometimes called "HMOs": Homes in Multiple Occupation.
FWIW I lived for 12 very happy years in a 37.5m2 one bed unit - lovely development and very secure. It rarely gets mentioned, but one of the things that made it possible for Finland to eradicate homelessness was realising that minimum sizes were too big and therefore more expensive and allowing smaller units (typically around 28m2) for studios made it easier to find housing for the less well off and people entering independent living for the first time.
Read the link I posted earlier. Part V was NOT designed to replace social housing. It was (and is still considered to be) designed to give the state a share in the development of land owned by private developers. Nowhere in any debate, in any committee or in the review of Part V will you see an intention to replace social housing with Part V social acquisitions. It was intended to give the state a "share", nothing more. The unintended consequences of LAs replacing their in house design and build process with Part V allocations was unintentional, and not in the original concept for part V.How is it an unintended consequence when it was designed to operate in that manner? Today direct building (by tender) of social housing can be organised by local authorities under part 8. But part V was designed to be the main avenue for provision of social housing. This is what was designed to replace the need for direct building.
Again, this isn't true - income levels were actually greatly increased for eligibility for social homes just recently - however the reality is that demand trumps supply and the highest priority goes to those with the most pressing need - i.e. lowest incomes and typically long term welfare.How is it an unintended consequence when it was designed to operate in that manner? Today direct building (by tender) of social housing can be organised by local authorities under part 8. But part V was designed to be the main avenue for provision of social housing. This is what was designed to replace the need for direct building.
It was essentially capped by low ceilings on income levels to be eligible for a social housing . Then from that pool there is a system of deciding who is most "in need".
This isn't true and is a commonly repeated myth - those who don't engage can, and do have their welfare suspended."In need" and "underprivileged" are so loosely thrown around in Ireland today. As is the word 'homeless". If you have a severe disability for life I think most people would be in consensus that it can considered "in need". If you have three kids and are unemployed and can't hold a long term relationship then you are also considered "in need". A potential problem is in Ireland jobseekers allowance has no end date. In other countries they eventually cut you off or reduce the rate continuously over time until it becomes very low. This effectively means in Ireland anyone can choose to be unemployed for life at any time and it will be covered for as long as they want to and can put up with any hoops intreo make them jump through for a while. The longer you are unemployed the more benefits you become eligible for.
I'm not sure where you are getting that information from as there are many variants and some variations again as to how local authorities run their own versions.It's not the same. It used to be pre crash. In the current affordable housing scheme the government take an equity share in your house. For example if the discount is 20%, they own 20% of that house, forever. If you die they'll take their 20% share back. After 40 years you have to pay the government out of their stake although I don't know how they plan to enforce this. Also if the price of your house goes up, the amount you owe the government goes up too, as it's a fixed percentage of the market value at all times. For example if on a 400k property they give you an 80k discount and after 5 years the market value is 500k and you want to pay off your share, it would now by 100k.
In the tenancy purchase scheme for council houses, the discount is clawed back if you sell immediately. This clawback reduces by 2% per year until it's zero after 20-30 years. (40-60% discount). This means if market rates are high you can potentially start to profit rather quickly from a resale.
Affordable housing, and the first home scheme which works in the same manner really, look like terrible schemes for the tenants compared to the old affordable housing schemes and any of the schemes to buy a council house at discount.