Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off housing

Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off housing

Postby PVC King » Tue Dec 21, 2010 8:01 pm

Planning permissions down almost 50%
Updated: 11:52, Tuesday, 21 December 2010
http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1221/cso-business.html

Official figures show another sharp drop in the number of planning permissions granted for new homes.


Official figures show another sharp drop in the number of planning permissions granted for new homes in the third quarter of this year.

The Central Statistics Office said 4,641 new homes were given permission, a drop of 45.9% compared with the same period last year. The number of new houses fell by 47.5%, while permissions for apartments were down 43.4%.

The CSO also said one-off houses accounted for just under a third of the homes granted planning permission in the three-month period at 31.1%.
In 2009, figures showed a 43.9% drop in planning permissions year-on-year in the third quarter.


You really couldn't make that up.....

The government effectively owns the banking system BOI,ILP, Ulser Bank excepted, the construction sector is dying because developers can't sell houses then builders don't get paid, there are estates under serious consideration for demolition and what does the government do? Do they cut supply to stabalise prices, no they give a planning permission to everyone in the audience to undermine the market further.

You really couldn't make it up.....
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby missarchi » Tue Dec 21, 2010 9:05 pm

what do you expect? a free market? their is no such thing
missarchi
Old Master
 
Posts: 1795
Joined: Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:53 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Tue Dec 21, 2010 10:28 pm

I expect the taxpayers interest to be protected; by gambling the national finances saving Anglo Irish Bank etc the taxpayer has a very clear interest in doing everything possible to control development to ensure that the reduced housing demand is channelled into the massive over-supply that overhangs the market.

Granting planning permission for one off houses is not just bad in environmental terms it is bad for the exchequer position as it undermines the NAMA loanbook. An immediate ban on all one off houses save for very selected applications where it an be demonstrated that the applicants are full time farmers and or carers of farmers should be enacted.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Wed Dec 22, 2010 8:38 pm

PVC King, you're better than this.

I think you're believing all the greenwash we're all being fed at the moment.
All this waffle about economising and carbon footprints dulls the brain.
Its us, us humans, who cause the problems of the planet.
Look at the benefits of the current cold spell.
Road deaths are cut by 75% this Christmas.

As for the once-off housing, so what?
Moralising about how people live their lives needs to start at a far more basic level than the house they live in.
If you want to really start to make a better world, address changing the system that allows people to build wherever they like, with relatively little let or hindrance.

The ones who've caused the problems are the Councils who tried to get on the gravy train by building unsupported estates in remote locations based on the "build them and they will come" basis.

This bad planning created two marketplaces

- the ordinary market, which will help get the construction industry through this, driven by price and location and demand.
- the badly planned "ghost estate" market, which will need to be used for specific purposes in order to ever be sold and which may need tailor-made solutions to provide identity, amenity and employment facilities proximate to them.

Or else they need to be demolished and their raw materials recycled.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Wed Dec 22, 2010 9:26 pm

Look to China 2030, nuclear power will be the dominent electrical source, 20,000 - 30,000 kms of high speed rail lines, 20 plus cities with a population exceeding 10m people. Look at Ireland today public transport starved of passengers due to the most dispersed settlement patterns in Europe, congested motorways feeding commuters to undersized cities; town centres dying because those with the reddies left for their McMansions developed in a hotch potch manner in the fields.

More dispersal means more carbon release; gravity dictates that what goes up must come down leading to far more extreme weather events which has now led to insurers such as Swiss Re spending increasing sums on climate change lobbying and research funding.

One off housing is the least efficient development pattern, sociologists have proven it leads to reduced social participation and an increased sense of social isolation.

Forgetting the academic reasons to ban one off housing; the idea of any further development gaining consent in the least suitable places when the exchequer is the largest owner of development land is financially irresponsible when demand has fallen off a cliff, there are tens of thousands of unfinished units on half developed sites. Think Chinese protect the state's interests at all costs.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Fri Dec 24, 2010 2:57 pm

PVC King wrote:Look to China 2030, nuclear power will be the dominent electrical source, 20,000 - 30,000 kms of high speed rail lines, 20 plus cities with a population exceeding 10m people. .


Have a scansion at the Goldman Sachs BRICs2 Report:

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/ideas/bric ... eyond.html

One thing the Chinese claim to have invented is a "failsafe" nuclear reactor, to avoid 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl type disasters - a great achievement if its true, still leaving the problem of wastes disposal, but otherwise a safe, clean source of energy.

[quote
Look at Ireland today public transport starved of passengers due to the most dispersed settlement patterns in Europe, congested motorways feeding commuters to undersized cities; town centres dying because those with the reddies left for their McMansions developed in a hotch potch manner in the fields.

More dispersal means more carbon release; gravity dictates that what goes up must come down leading to far more extreme weather events which has now led to insurers such as Swiss Re spending increasing sums on climate change lobbying and research funding.
[/quote]

Whatever about energy usage vs transport, I think people have enough disposable income to cover this.

Surely the issue is satisfying the market here by providing cost efficient non-polluting forms of transport, like hydrogen power cells?

This way you might expend more energy, but the rise in carbon increase will be minimal, and that's what counts.

One off housing is the least efficient development pattern, sociologists have proven it leads to reduced social participation and an increased sense of social isolation.


Now you're changing tack onto socio-psychological reasoning.

Up to a point I agree with you, which is why I'm rearing my family in a semi-d in an estate, where were have neighbours nice and neighbours bollicky - all the fun of the fair.

When we lived in Wicklow we had a lot of neighbours in big houses - and there are still pupils like that in the school our family attends - they aren't the caricatures presented of them in the media as socially maladjusted.

And your arguments totally fail to address the negative aspects of dense suburban and urban living, where even in the midst of the greenest most sustainable development you can experience alienation and isolation.

Because community is about culture and people as much as the kind of buildings you live in.

Its well recorded now that moving people from an inner city Dublin environment to the wide open space of Tallaght with its lack of schools and amenity made a social problem worse.

The guilt trip from that ghettoisation program has fed its way back into the planning process in the form is the social housing requriements - mixing rich with poor to avoid ghettos - and its been an utterly dismal failure too.

[/quote]

Forgetting the academic reasons to ban one off housing; the idea of any further development gaining consent in the least suitable places when the exchequer is the largest owner of development land is financially irresponsible when demand has fallen off a cliff, there are tens of thousands of unfinished units on half developed sites. Think Chinese protect the state's interests at all costs.[/quote]

I think we need to tell the greens where to go and simply develop non-polluting sources of energy.

|We need to stop lick-spittling the fossil fuel indsutry in all its forms and develop high altitude solar collectors and hydrogen fuel cells and get on with it.

I cannot be bothered with this hairshirt approach which it killing our inventiveness and our economy.

Have you been in one of these so-called passive vented buildings? I have. Clueless Design on steroids.

Wait until you see the absenteeism figures from these buildings arising from discomfort in the working environment.

Using hot external air to cool buildings in summer.

Using cold external air to warm buildings in winter.

The odd heating pipe to mitigate the effects.

Red and blue arrows in the air in the design sections showing "ventilation" but not comfort levels.

It'll all end in tears mark my words, but is anybody listening when I tell them these things - ohhh no - Members of the Institute designed these buildings and they've won awards, you know.

Yeah. Right.

I can't wait to see the retrofit bill to put in proper HVAC systems.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby Solo » Fri Jan 07, 2011 1:55 am

One thing the Chinese claim to have invented is a "failsafe" nuclear reactor, to avoid 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl


Not so sure myself anything that says made in China is normally a poor copy and rarely does what it says on the tin.
Solo
Member
 
Posts: 77
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 1:41 am

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Fri Jan 07, 2011 12:01 pm

Solo wrote:
One thing the Chinese claim to have invented is a "failsafe" nuclear reactor, to avoid 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl


Not so sure myself anything that says made in China is normally a poor copy and rarely does what it says on the tin.


Now they can make visually identical copies of Swiss watches within a month of the brochure coming out.

Apparently its the design of the reactor core, the geometry of which is passively regulated.

Saw it on Euronews some months back.

Correction, it was designed in Germany but is currently being tested by many countries, including China.

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

This type of reactor is claimed to be unique because its passive safety removes the need for redundant, active safety systems. Because the reactor is designed to handle high temperatures, it can cool by natural circulation and still survive in accident scenarios, which may raise the temperature of the reactor to 1600°C. Because of its design, its high temperatures allow higher thermal efficiencies than possible in traditional nuclear power plants (up to 50%) and has the additional feature that the gases do not dissolve contaminants or absorb neutrons as water does, so the core has less in the way of radioactive fluids. A number of prototypes have been built. Active development continued in South Africa until 2010 as the PBMR design, and in China whose HTR-10 is the only prototype currently operating.

The technology was first developed in Germany[1] but political and economic decisions were made to abandon the technology.[2] In various forms, it is currently under development by MIT, University of California at Berkeley, the South African company PBMR, General Atomics (U.S.), the Dutch company Romawa B.V., Adams Atomic Engines [1], Idaho National Laboratory, and the Chinese company Huaneng.[3]


Things change.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby wearnicehats » Fri Jan 07, 2011 3:40 pm

PVC King wrote:I expect the taxpayers interest to be protected; by gambling the national finances saving Anglo Irish Bank etc the taxpayer has a very clear interest in doing everything possible to control development to ensure that the reduced housing demand is channelled into the massive over-supply that overhangs the market.

Granting planning permission for one off houses is not just bad in environmental terms it is bad for the exchequer position as it undermines the NAMA loanbook. An immediate ban on all one off houses save for very selected applications where it an be demonstrated that the applicants are full time farmers and or carers of farmers should be enacted.


Are you suggesting that someone who has the opportunity and the will to develop a one-off house should be prevented from doing so and instead forced to go and live in some godawful housing estate just because "it's there"??
wearnicehats
Senior Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Wed Aug 02, 2006 2:38 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:20 pm

Not quite; but what I can see as being a radical compromise would be that given the abundance of land where the basic services have been put in but not yet developed could be sold off to people in plots of say an eighth of an acre a pop; this would drain down NAMA lands whilst not forcing people into poorly designed schemes. Critically it delivers both the ability to self design and ensures that towns build population. It gives the exchequer via NAMA the revenue to provide services and protects ground water to a much greater degree by ensuring all effluent is going into the local authority sewers; it also cuts the usage of non-national roads which are going to see their budgets completely murdered over the next decade.

The argument often put forward for large detached houses is that they are a symbol of attainment; the environmental lobby point out the damage that one offs do on so many levels from contamination of ground water to unsustainable transport patterns and increased cost of providing services. Well this hits both allowing people to have large houses in places that people can even see them; forget the pathetic national solidarity bond paying a pathetic 1% coupon, only an idiot would have bought them; building your one off on a NAMA plot and employing the most underemployed sector in the economy; now thats patriotism that doesn't hurt the wallet.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Fri Jan 07, 2011 8:37 pm

Solo wrote:
One thing the Chinese claim to have invented is a "failsafe" nuclear reactor, to avoid 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl


Not so sure myself anything that says made in China is normally a poor copy and rarely does what it says on the tin.


Have you been to Asia recently?
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:22 pm

PVC King wrote:Not quite; but what I can see as being a radical compromise would be that given the abundance of land where the basic services have been put in but not yet developed could be sold off to people in plots of say an eighth of an acre a pop; this would drain down NAMA lands whilst not forcing people into poorly designed schemes. Critically it delivers both the ability to self design and ensures that towns build population. It gives the exchequer via NAMA the revenue to provide services and protects ground water to a much greater degree by ensuring all effluent is going into the local authority sewers; it also cuts the usage of non-national roads which are going to see their budgets completely murdered over the next decade.

The argument often put forward for large detached houses is that they are a symbol of attainment; the environmental lobby point out the damage that one offs do on so many levels from contamination of ground water to unsustainable transport patterns and increased cost of providing services. Well this hits both allowing people to have large houses in places that people can even see them; forget the pathetic national solidarity bond paying a pathetic 1% coupon, only an idiot would have bought them; building your one off on a NAMA plot and employing the most underemployed sector in the economy; now thats patriotism that doesn't hurt the wallet.


"Now ye're talkin'!"

:)

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby teak » Sat Jan 08, 2011 4:47 pm

PVC, you need to be mindful of 2 things.

1. The total for new houses in the year was small compared to
normal times.

2. The existence of an empty house near some jackass village
in rural Ireland with no amenities, noisy crowds of drinkers
every weekend and a bunch of nosy neighbours is no use to a
person who wants a quiet house in the countryside.

All this is to say nothing about the stupid design and bad
tradesmanship that is part and parcel of 99% of these vacant
houses.

Bad enough that we pay for the follies of these sick-hearted
developers.
There is no imperative that we live in their stupid kennels.

Besides, some level of construction industry has to be kept
going, otherwise there'll be a further 100,000 on the labour.
Architects - and planners - included.
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sat Jan 08, 2011 5:12 pm

We need to forget about the boomier phase when 80,000 - 90,000 units were rolling off the line; I think it is reasonable to say that 40,000 units completed per year is long run average and where we should be aiming for; it is about 10,000 now and one wonders how many of these were bought off the plan 3-4 years ago.

What is proposed is not that people be forced to buy anything; it is simply that the government would ban one off houses on unzoned land and that NAMA would make available for sale in each town plots for sale of up to an eighth of an acre for people to do their own thing with; but bearing in mind these people would be in a very strong position to gain consent given that the land is zoned resi and it would be very difficult against over development of the subject plot and that they would be stregnthening the town.

If people are offered what they want; they will buy it and the most toxic elements of the NAMA portfolio that in many cases have no value at all can start to give a return to the exchequer.

Please confirm how giving people the right to build on zoned land will cost the architectural profession and construction industry anything; as a proportion of one off houses how many McMansions do you think were architect designed during Dick's rural bubble? It was never the business of architects to haggle with local planners as to local need; you are design professionals not sociologists.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 09, 2011 12:25 am

I think you make a good point PVC King.

However I would actually go further.

Developers are known to have good "noses" for buying up land.

This is not to say they buy land then lobby and throw envelopes at people to have it zoned in their favour.

Developers see land in the way that planners see land - "where is the most logical place for the town to develop, given the topography, services, roads, amenities and natural features including subsoil conditions".

Very often they correctly anticipate the natural order of development according to good planning practice.

NAMA should already have assembled teams of planners and archtiects to review the existing NAMA landbanks of UNZONED LAND or INAPPROPRIATELY ZONED LAND to see if any of this is suitable for zoning for the purposes you mentioned or for other purposes.

These purposes could include sites for hospitals, schools, sites for multi-national companies setting up here, specialist purposes for energy generation or hi tech manufacturing and also higher density residential enclaves.

The work could also include a review of the "ghost estates" to see if whether creating a draw near them in accordance with the National Spatial Strategy could yield positive benefits for the value of NAMA's holdings.

But who's running NAMA - accountants and "bankers" who know the price of everything and the value of nothing, legal eagles who know what NOT to do - not one of them has a design bone in their bodies or the imagination needed to turn this around!

Is there even one planning officer appointed to NAMA yet?

Remember this is all OUR land now - not the developers.
We should be ensuring that anything that gets built on it is in accordance with best practice in relation to energy conservation, biodiversity, use density, sustainable transportation and distances from urban centres.
But we should also see if we can put some of the "orphaned" estates to good use for something, perhaps twinning some of them with an employment use.
Because some of these estates are not entirely populated by ghosts - many are half finished and half-occupied and the government owes the unfortunates living in them a duty of care.

Is there even one Architect appointed to NAMA yet?

And the frightening thing mentioned in Teak's post is the most pressing issue of all - ascertaining the condition of the built work to see if the houses have been built compliantly or is remedial work required.

Bad enough if they are built in the wrong place without them being badly built.

Even those that are built compliantly today won't be Carbon Neutral - is there a case for retrofitting insulation to these buildings?

Is there even one chartered surveyor appointed to NAMA yet?

Can we even be sure that the roofs are properly fixed and the foundations don't have pyrite in them?

Is there even one Engineer appointed to NAMA yet?

Look at the appointments if you want to see whether NAMA is a serious player to look after our money and this building stock goign forward.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:40 am

I completely endorse the concept of both architects and planners being hired in the short term to assess the longer term options and their retention into the medium term; there are surveyors but from I understand the individuals hired were restricted to those with experience restricted to high value commercial projects or very large urban regeneration schemes; they are highly respected individuals with impressive CVs; obviously an essential component given the make up of the portfolio and as such it was always correct to start by looking at the biggest exposures; there is however a need to look at the entire portfolio.

From what I can make out the markets have marked the foreign and urban commercial holdings to market; applied very heavy discounts to inner city development land but attributed virtually no value to development frontier residential land. In terms of establishing a worst case scenario and in light of the complete unreliability of any of the statements made by Lenihan Bros you can't blame the markets for their scepticism; however the one phrase that sticks in my throat "they don't get Ireland" may actually have a great relevance in terms of the development frontier landbank.

Someone will need to assess sites and design revised estate layouts along the lines of 'outline consent' level of design; as an example take a 10 acre holding in say Sallins; if this were broken up into a 10 year phased split of say 5 acres closest to the town being laid down as the 'retained land' where phases of units were designed and marketed through local agents and that the other 5 acres would be sold on as plots of land of an eighth of acre at say €50k - €75k a plot with an outline consent in place. The funds raised through the disposal of the less well situated land could be used to either pay down the interest on the NAMA bonds or kick start small phases when sufficient units were secured by deposits.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 09, 2011 1:15 pm

Well, I think this is my point.

Good to see some surveyors and at this stage this seems appropriate.

Surveyeors are not architects or engineers however - they are not trained in design.

Sending in people to assess is fine at this stage, but are they competent enough for detail work?

No is the answer - fine for the estimates down to even 10% accuracy, but not for an overall design solution.

We will need a design team to correctly and competently assess the issues and design our way out of the problem.

We'll need those with experience of refurbishment work on housing and small-tomid commercial as well, and their back up teams.

A house which cannot be made compliant merely by refurbishment could be taken over the line with revision to glazing or by adding a sun room.

-----------------

As for looking at large estates or land holdings, outline permissions will not be enough.

We will need to evaluate the possibility of creating vibrant centres for living encompassing best practice.

At this point the lessons learnt from Adamstown should be put into practice in terms of joined up designing and evaluating the results.

IOW planning isolated communities of compliant houses is not where its at - you need a mix of uses for sustainability including employment uses.

You also need to have shops, services, schools and medical centres close by in order to service a community sustainably and this is going to be the hurdle to jump.

-----------------

This is the one of the reasons behind all the damed roads you see - centres of excellence miles away from people's houses and you just drive there.

Perfect for trimming down the health service for those who like driving 100 miles when they're terminally ill - useless for building local communities.

Perfect for swanning down the motorway to one of your three homes in Clare or Mayo - useless for running the kids to a local school or nipping down to the shops for milk.

We need people in government who are good at joined up thinking, not the current shower of departmentalised brainwashed fools who have to rely on civil servants to wipe their noses.

-----------------

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sun Jan 09, 2011 3:23 pm

I think you need to layer residential development land into a minimum of 4 levels

1. Urban regeneration
2. New towns/ large suburban extensions
3. Small scale urban infill & Edge town up to 200 units intended at 16 - 25 units per acre
4. Failed commuter town large holdings


With classes 1 & 2 you need to leave to the professionals that have demonstrated an ability to have their business plans accepted by NAMA; on large scale developments the state has no business doing anything other than assessing the loan positions and if necessary bringing in other professional development outfits to take these over either completely or as lead developer with NAMA retaining some equity but the development finance coming exclusively from the private sector.

Class 4 is worthless; it should be rented as agricultural land or to sporting organisations into the long term.

Class 3 is to my mind the one area where a complete rethink on strategy is required; during the bubble there was complete tunnel vision with this land class, none of the vision of Adamstown largely because the holdings were both too small and too close to existing retail and social infrastructure to merit the usual parade of convenience store, dry cleaners, cafe, pharmacy etc.

Property markets are all about the creation of confidence and the ability of financial institutions to lend money to purchasers based on comparable evidence and an added margin of safety put down by the purchaser in the form of a deposit to insulate the bank from short term volatility.

I don't disagree that FPP is the only way to deliver the final product and that in larger schemes that are so large as to be more than 10 mins walk from an existing town centre that you need to look at more comprehensive planning even if that involves more than one ownership.

The reason I selected a 10 acre site is that there are probably hundreds of 10 acre sites that have FPP for schemes that people simply will not buy into at present because the individual existing homes are poorly proportioned and largely unattractive homes that were bought previously out of a fear of not getting onto the property ladder before it got beyond you. The climate has changed the onus is now on the industry to give people a better product.

The simple change I am advocating is that small sites in the right locations should move away from the developer led approach and should be carved up piecemeal into plots for people to self build; as opposed to one design house designing 200 houses in a maximum of 4 - 5 design styles.

What I propose would involve one design team designing road layouts and local agents marketing individual plots sold with the the right to build on any one of the the 80 plots of say 480 sq m with c40 sq m being reserved for the road and paths; people would have an OPP to build up to 350 sq m at a maximum height of say three storeys. This would allow individuals the same package as doing a one off house; but the house would form part of a town and would also be open to small scale builders to build one or more plots speculatively for resale or as buy to let investments.

If 3,500 units were sold off at €50k each this could unlock €175m a year from holdings which are currently valued at nil in most analysts opinion. The construction budget would be another €1bn plus; p.a.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:19 pm

Nope, I am saying you cannot leave it up to the professionals if this land is now controlled by NAMA - you have to spur NAMA to loo kat this as opposed to leave it.

But the government are scared witless about pumping any money into development for fear it'll start inflation spiralling again.

And there is a degree of truth to that concern - but correctly managed Smarth Growth could be the solution here.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sun Jan 09, 2011 4:30 pm

You can push NAMA all you want but their mandate is basically to manage loans; how you instruct them to dispose of a certain class of land is about the best chance to spur development. How many people do you know would have selected the self build option if it were open to them at a reasonable price?

Mews sites capable of delivering 200 sq m were changing hands for €500k in the better parts of Dublin 5 years ago; giving people the opportunity to self build for a modest land price at the very edge of an urban area would to my mind be real progress; as it would allow for the first time in the Irish property market to buy a plot and have an architect build a home in phases; i.e. phase 1 a conventional home of say 3 beds which was capable of extension as the needs of their family grew over time.

From a Macro viewpoint; If the average land price paid by speculators during the boom was €1m per acre this would see the exchequer recover €400k - €600k which given most of these loans were bought at a 70% - 80% discount would be cash generative and significantly balance sheet positive even after the costs of roads and site preparation were deducted.

In addition it would have the capacity to get architects and small building contractors working again. The recovery will be slow but ensuring that the government starts to derisk NAMA from the earliest possible stage is vital.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:28 pm

Again, I don't see we're contradicting each other, more facing the same way and taking a view on what's the best course.

My fear is that no-one in NAMA will grasp the nettle - that they don't want to sell any land because the expect prices will rise eventually .
Thus by leaving any decision on land sales until "later" they will see the price go up and improve the overall eventual return.

HOWEVER -

What they're forgetting - if they were to choose that route - is that we are already seen as part of the "slow" second tier of Europe.
Germany and France are already recovering and we need to pull our socks up and get after them.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sun Jan 09, 2011 5:39 pm

You are right; and by holding tens of billions in a non-performing asset class we will fall further behind; if residential development could within a couple of years hit 20,000 units a year or half the long run average then NAMA could unlock a billion a year and you would probably see employment rise by 50,000 taking a further €500m - €800m off the deficit in reduced welfare costs; add in stamp duty, vat etc and things do look better.

The question is are NAMA willing to take a first step and try something new and not very expensive in carving up some of their less prime development land?
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby teak » Sun Jan 09, 2011 6:53 pm

Okay, PVC.

Sorry if I took your intentions up wrong last time.
If it's just the LAND surrounding a village that has been zoned already
that you want to re-plan, fine.
But I think that some points need to be made:

1. If your proposal goes ahead, then some people associated with the
builders of the vacant new houses will seek to get disposal of these
added to your proposal -- and you know what's wrong with that.
It will take a lot more than simply changing the look of these houses
by means of more glazing or adding sun-lounges to make them viable.
A lot of them are slap-up jobs, awkwardly designed and painfully
identical to look at.

2. Surely just sub-dividing into 1/8 acre lots and holding an auction
is not good urban planning.
For one thing, a lot of villagers are now looking around for allotments.
I think that some of the land should go into that.
(BTW, I mean properly lain-out allotments with water tap points every
4 plots, a horshoe driveway around, a shed for the allotment holders
association and some parking for casual veg buyers.)
Secondly, some land must be consigned for common areas, landscaping
and amenity areas, e.g. sports areas & pramming paths.
Thirdly, is 1/8 acre (which is 25 yds x 24.2 yds) enough of private
land to induce people to move away from a one-off site and into a
village setting ?
I think not. Have a row with the Mrs in the 1/8 acre lot and the whole
damn village will know about it.

3. What about the growing self-generation energy needs of these
new inhabitants ?
A one-off has both more space and more potential co-operators like
local farmers for building a wind generator.
The energy generation situation needs consideration at the planning
stage.

ONQ, what in the hell are you saying about developers having good noses
for housing sites ?
Are you blind or what ?
Look at the placement of estates in town and city suburbs over the last
10 years and see how the only available amenity area land for existing
nearby estates got bought by some greedyarse "developer" so he could put
another 100 ugly identical houses on it.

The only thing developers have a nose for is making a lot of money from
making ugly estates that any decent person wouldn't even dream of .
teak
Member
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:06 pm

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby PVC King » Sun Jan 09, 2011 9:35 pm

1. If your proposal goes ahead, then some people associated with the
builders of the vacant new houses will seek to get disposal of these
added to your proposal -- and you know what's wrong with that.
It will take a lot more than simply changing the look of these houses
by means of more glazing or adding sun-lounges to make them viable.
A lot of them are slap-up jobs, awkwardly designed and painfully
identical to look at.


Exactly why you would sell them with OPP only with the local planners to enforce design standards at local level; I do believe that the fall in overall construction costs and site acquisition costs will lead to better design standards as at these levels people are paying a lot less for both the initial site purchase and rate per sq m for base build; earnings and earnings multiples on mortages whilst down still make housing more affordable; this should make it easier for planners to coax people into better designs. When you look at a lot of the houses built in places like Rockbrook in the 1970s and 1980s they were much better designed than most of the muck thrown up in the last decade. Bad design remains a threat but a little help from the property supplements on good design would help greatly.

2. Surely just sub-dividing into 1/8 acre lots and holding an auction is not good urban planning.
For one thing, a lot of villagers are now looking around for allotments.I think that some of the land should go into that.
(BTW, I mean properly lain-out allotments with water tap points every 4 plots, a horshoe driveway around, a shed for the allotment holders association and some parking for casual veg buyers.) Secondly, some land must be consigned for common areas, landscaping and amenity areas, e.g. sports areas & pramming paths.
Thirdly, is 1/8 acre (which is 25 yds x 24.2 yds) enough of private land to induce people to move away from a one-off site and into a village setting ?
I think not. Have a row with the Mrs in the 1/8 acre lot and the whole damn village will know about it.


Thirdly I would roughly calclulate an acre as 4,166 sq m and allow 516 sq m for roadway/ paths, planting etc; each plot would therefore be 450 sq m; which I would configure in plots of 15m frontage and 30m depth; this would allow 8m for a front garden / driveway; 12m depth assumed build area of 180sq m or say 165 sq m when circulation is allowed for at ground with a smaller first floor of 135 sq m. Then the rear garden would be 10m deep and 15 m wide. These would give the ability to create very attractive double front houses. All development on unzoned land would be banned except where people could prove they are farmers or where a son/daughter could prove they are a full time carer to a farmer. The self build option would be there but not in a manner that undermines the existing overscaled land bank.


3. What about the growing self-generation energy needs of these new inhabitants ?
A one-off has both more space and more potential co-operators likelocal farmers for building a wind generator.
The energy generation situation needs consideration at the planning stage.


On a recent visit to a village just outside Nice a family friend outlined the deal they had just secured from EDF where they got a government guaranteed bank loan to install solar panels; they could buy units of electricity from the grid at 12c and sell solar electricity back to EDF at 20c per unit. Two reasons why this wouldn't work in Ireland; one there is no sun and secondly the ESB doesn't behave like a charity. I am a great fan of wind energy but in two circumstances; one where it is either off shore or somewhere like a disused bog and secondly where the government creates a false market; the government can't afford a false market and the costs of connecting small numbers of turbines exceed the payback; if oil gets over $200 then you may be right but we are a long way from that point.

Not trying to be argumentative Teak; you clearly know this area well and make some very good points; but I have a very strong conviction that as a society we can't afford one off housing any more; we need to shift the landbank that has €50bn of govt cash tied up in it and get that cash back tomuch more productive uses.
PVC King
 

Re: Ghost Estates, 3 Years supply unsold stock, one off hous

Postby onq » Sun Jan 09, 2011 10:48 pm

Well, I see NAMA has at least one planner in it.

http://ie.linkedin.com/pub/alice-charles/b/247/364

On the right track at least.

ONQ.
User avatar
onq
Old Master
 
Posts: 1220
Joined: Tue May 12, 2009 12:29 am
Location: Dublin, Ireland

Next

Return to Irish Planning Matters