County/City Councillors don't run our country. (They may, however, contribute to ruining parts of it, through poor policy options!)
Should developers be obliged to provide 5% for community and cultural spaces?
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
County/City Councillors don't run our country. (They may, however, contribute to ruining parts of it, through poor policy options!)
In the development that we recently bought into, the estate next door had various NIMBYs who delayed the building and made our houses more expensive to build. Funnily enough though when it was built those same local Facebook groups were absolutely delighted with the playground that was mandated as part of the plans. Free access for them, for something we paid for. And their property values benefit.
I don't have an issue with them accessing it (all developments should enhance an area), but I do somewhat feel we are being ripped off. I would think one way to reverse NIMBYism would be for councils to levy proper property rates to pay for the capital costs of these things. If planners say 1,000 new homes where there is already 8,000 houses should be built in an area, then the area needs X or Y number of playgrounds and community facilities. New developments will bring down the costs for existing residents who will benefit from such things. Having walked through these older estates, there's nothing really tangible there that I'm benefiting from (although I accept the value of the home is also tied to existing neighbourhoods and how established they are).
My personal perception is that councils and planners look to "fix" their historic mistakes by screwing new buyers. It's also the same with water charges where new buyers are paying for the fact that water charges failed in this country. It's a form of stealth tax where you don't have to confront an immediate interest group and can "bury" the problem.
I will say that I'm happy enough that them foisting this cost on us up front will at least go to "infrastructure". That is unlike the VAT and associated taxes the government pick up and throw on current day goodies.
I don't have an issue with them accessing it (all developments should enhance an area), but I do somewhat feel we are being ripped off. I would think one way to reverse NIMBYism would be for councils to levy proper property rates to pay for the capital costs of these things. If planners say 1,000 new homes where there is already 8,000 houses should be built in an area, then the area needs X or Y number of playgrounds and community facilities. New developments will bring down the costs for existing residents who will benefit from such things. Having walked through these older estates, there's nothing really tangible there that I'm benefiting from (although I accept the value of the home is also tied to existing neighbourhoods and how established they are).
My personal perception is that councils and planners look to "fix" their historic mistakes by screwing new buyers. It's also the same with water charges where new buyers are paying for the fact that water charges failed in this country. It's a form of stealth tax where you don't have to confront an immediate interest group and can "bury" the problem.
I will say that I'm happy enough that them foisting this cost on us up front will at least go to "infrastructure". That is unlike the VAT and associated taxes the government pick up and throw on current day goodies.
This is the situation world wide. It gets a lot of attention in North America where elected councils have full control of property tax.
They choose to keep property taxes (relatively) low and pass on as much as possible in development levies and additional improvement works, because well homeowners vote not future homeowners.
Some of it is a bit good timing such as a sewer reaching its end of life and a new development comes along meaning a bigger one is needed. Well they can replace it with a bigger one.
Others are more blatant. The situation is even more complicated here because of the property tax we have here doesn’t really have any real link to operating costs.
Doesn't that all depend?
My inlaws there pay very high property taxes, such that it is a huge consideration in retirement. Local services including schools and policing get much of their funding through it. It leads to elections having items on the ballot including the building of a new town hall, where recently a town proposal to build a new one was defeated as locals saw it as town officials "empire building". Conversely a new police station was given wide support (despite low crime). I would still say I can see more tangible benefits of these taxes at a local level, particularly when you compare to areas with lower ones. It is similar to here that I find those tangible benefits fall way at a city or State levels, it's a big "meh" across the board, with problems tricky to fix at scale.
It's a bit of a tangent, it's not a system we can or should replicate.
Brian Moran of Hines in The Build Podcast asked the question as to why we weren't funding things with 100 year bonds.
My inlaws there pay very high property taxes, such that it is a huge consideration in retirement. Local services including schools and policing get much of their funding through it. It leads to elections having items on the ballot including the building of a new town hall, where recently a town proposal to build a new one was defeated as locals saw it as town officials "empire building". Conversely a new police station was given wide support (despite low crime). I would still say I can see more tangible benefits of these taxes at a local level, particularly when you compare to areas with lower ones. It is similar to here that I find those tangible benefits fall way at a city or State levels, it's a big "meh" across the board, with problems tricky to fix at scale.
It's a bit of a tangent, it's not a system we can or should replicate.
Brian Moran of Hines in The Build Podcast asked the question as to why we weren't funding things with 100 year bonds.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 55,411
Because we are in effect.
Of course they should be forced to build community infrastructure. It's a no brainer.
As for complaints NIMBYism. Too often developers and planners get away with causing massive problems for residents. Unfettered development shouldn't be allowed to fast track shoddy planning.
As for complaints NIMBYism. Too often developers and planners get away with causing massive problems for residents. Unfettered development shouldn't be allowed to fast track shoddy planning.
Last edited:
I don't think this 5% is for 'infrastructure' though, an example given was a little used artist's studio.
Well that's a separate point.
It's not an outlier example though, given the discussion started related to "cultural and community spaces" and Dublin City Council dropping the 5% requirement for large developments. That doesn't cover infrastructure as far as I know.
I don't know what the mechanism is for ensuring community infrastructure is in place, that may be national regs rather than DCC ones.
If you are doing a list of ways in which older generations have screwed young people to pay for their mistakes then this doesn't even make the top 20.
Where I said community infrastructure read it as community spaces if the word infrastructure is misdirecting you. Poor use of terms by me.
I assume the utility and value if a community resource like a village hall, community center, or social focal point like a park or garden or square or workshop building is understood by most.
I assume the utility and value if a community resource like a village hall, community center, or social focal point like a park or garden or square or workshop building is understood by most.
Last edited:
Who said they wanted unfettered development?
I think it's hilarious that people suddenly lurch to the idea that people don't want any regulation or planning when elements of that system are criticised.
Give me some recent examples of this?
To be clear on the "community infrastructure", it is the resident who pays in effect. That's the real question here, where should the burden fall?
Last edited:
That should have read
"Unfettered development shouldn't be allowed to fast track shoddy planning"
But I phased that awkwardly. They shouldn't be allowed to circumvent planning restrictions to fast track development.
And I didn't lurch to it. I see in my local area where I see they try to push through badly thought out Developments under the guise of some critical need. Like selling the land around a new school and not leaving any space for expansion or playing fields. Or building a new road or a bridge through quiet residential areas and then being puzzled when locals object.
"Unfettered development shouldn't be allowed to fast track shoddy planning"
But I phased that awkwardly. They shouldn't be allowed to circumvent planning restrictions to fast track development.
And I didn't lurch to it. I see in my local area where I see they try to push through badly thought out Developments under the guise of some critical need. Like selling the land around a new school and not leaving any space for expansion or playing fields. Or building a new road or a bridge through quiet residential areas and then being puzzled when locals object.
So classic NIMBY behaviour so.
"Badly thought out" - your opinion isn't fact
"Quiet residential areas" - code for "I don't like change"
The Department of Education plans schools, your issue should be taken up with them.
The fact that you bring up a bridge is the funniest whilst trying to speak under the guise of wanting more community facilities is hilarious. I am quite sure no planner or developer thinks building a bridge is easy, but there might be a reason for it beyond some evil notions, don't you think?
Your mentality is the problem and I can see right through it with trying to attribute some mendacity to developers when making an argument. And ironically you don't actually deal with the point of this thread.
"Badly thought out" - your opinion isn't fact
"Quiet residential areas" - code for "I don't like change"
The Department of Education plans schools, your issue should be taken up with them.
The fact that you bring up a bridge is the funniest whilst trying to speak under the guise of wanting more community facilities is hilarious. I am quite sure no planner or developer thinks building a bridge is easy, but there might be a reason for it beyond some evil notions, don't you think?
Your mentality is the problem and I can see right through it with trying to attribute some mendacity to developers when making an argument. And ironically you don't actually deal with the point of this thread.
Actually I brought it up under NIMBYism. Who introduced that. Badly thought out means it will cause future problems., and hey presto a few years later 10 yrs later and its causing problems. Complaining about community facilities making things more expensive is just another form of NIMBYism. Its just from the people buying instead.
Cramming lots of housing into places where the infrastructure isn't there, with no community facilities, never ends well. The very same people who want it, will be complaining about transport links, traffic and upsizing in a few years down the line. The school has no pitches etc. There's no parks.
We've been here before with Tiny Apartment and such. "Pandering to developers".
www.independent.ie
Cramming lots of housing into places where the infrastructure isn't there, with no community facilities, never ends well. The very same people who want it, will be complaining about transport links, traffic and upsizing in a few years down the line. The school has no pitches etc. There's no parks.
We've been here before with Tiny Apartment and such. "Pandering to developers".
Dublin councillors slam moves to scrap planning rule for 5pc community space
Dublin city councillors have hit out at the Government’s plans to scrap a key planning rule that required large apartment developments to include 5pc of their footprint for community or cultural use.
www.independent.ie
Its all the same thing. Developers want a free hand. Politicians want to give it to them. Cheaper housing is a vote winner.
Expecting any of this to result in cheaper housing, after the govt and developers track record over the last 30yrs of so is naive.
Expecting any of this to result in cheaper housing, after the govt and developers track record over the last 30yrs of so is naive.
And yet you seem to have some issue with a bridge, which is infrastructure. This is under the guise of a "quiet" neighbourhood, that's a personal desire (and ironically, often tied to perceptions of home value), not how a society should work.
Again you use the words "badly thought out" - explain this with a current example please. As someone who bought in the last three years and reviewed basically every single planning application for new builds in the GDA, I am curious to see what your example is.
This business of "being against community facilities is NIMBYism" seems to be a variant of "I know you are but what am I". The debate here really has been who should pay for community facilities. You jumped in immediately with something about developers, which shows the classic hallmarks of someone who doesn't understand the economics of how things get built. This works out nicely for the planners as they get to bury the lead on who is actually paying here. Developers aren't really paying beyond land use, it's the new home owners who are paying for facilities.
For a developer, their only substantive issue here is how the pricing levels impacts on viability. Viability is a function of having enough people who can afford to buy the product you are making. If you are both front loading the cost of facilities that will benefit several generations and also looking to "fix" problems of previous planning, then you simply making things more expensive and reducing the number of potential buyers and by consequence, how many can get built. And there's a trade off to that.
That trade off may be the fact that despite us building more homes than virtually anywhere else in Europe, we are still 50,000 units per year shy of where we were in 2008. Has that ended up well?
I am not suggesting either / or btw, just pointing out that this significantly impacts on the costs for buyers, in particular first time ones.
Okay this makes absolutely no sense. We have a fundamental supply issue (in the rental sector in particular). The ESRI estimated prices were c. 10% overvalued last year, which is not significant. Prices only just went through Celtic Tiger levels in the last 18 months, meanwhile (for example) a primary school teacher now starts on €10k more than they did in 2007.
The post Celtic Tiger crash resulted in sustained 15% unemployment, significant emigration, significant tax rises and creation of a generational divide that we are going to live with for decades.
People espousing such a "solution" whilst demanding community halls on the same thread....