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

what do you expect? a free market? their is no such thing

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, 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.

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 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/brics/BRICs-and-Beyond.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.

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 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.

@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”??

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.

@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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 .

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.

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.

@teak wrote:

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 .

You seem to be confusing the design of estates, which rest with the quality of the engineer/technician/draughtsman who was used to design them instead of an architect [something I would criticize some developers for] and the planning officer who didn’t seek higher standards – with my point which related to their location.

From your gripe it sounds like to have had some unkempt field near you sold to a developer by the council that you had assumed was open space but wasn’t.
I’ve come across this before down near Smurfits in Donnybrook when we were trying to get permission for Beave Row – an endless Appeal by a lone gunman resident who didn’t know his facts about the land.
The world an his wife thinks they “own” this land but have neither title nor rights of way not rights of access to it.

If my assumption is correct, then my advice to you Teak is – suss out who owns the land before you assume its Open Space.
Look at the development plan – the yellow A or A1 zoning on it is a dead giveaway.

And BTW the concept of developing open space deemd surplus to requirements was probably generated by the council, not the developer.
Lets face it, you seldom get land better serviced, more accessible or more sustainably densified than an unassigned open area in the middle of an existing residential estate.
It ticks all the boxes.

ONQ.

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.

I see nothing wrong with self-generation in rural areas.
The appearance of the turbine need not be as ugly as some existing ones.
The argument that you give on creating a false market is not really all of
the story.
Many of us would say that the existing electricity market is patently false
in terms of unit prices. I think these would drop for everyone,especially those
industrial users of close to wind generators, had we only better energy
planning and more control over the ESB.
Saving carbon (and a lot of other more dangerous SOx & NOx) emissions from
Moneypoint may be cheaper to the national economy than saving it from the
burps of our national animal — upon whom the livelihoods of maybe 200,000
households directly depend . . .

I do not think that acceptance of people’s right to live in a rural area will
cause failure to a scheme of NAMA plot sales along the lines indicated by
you because the price of these plots would be much cheaper.
People with the desire to have a healthy home environment without the
squinting windows of neighbours will pay an extra premium.
A possible issue not raised is design harmony amongst the various new
home built on the same area of land.
Left to the individual homesteaders, it is likely that there would be a
lot of different shapes and sizes of homes (designed by some local “builder’s
draughtsman”) with little relation between them and no coherent landscaping
plan for the whole scheme. I don’t want to deny anyone design freedom or
their right to hire whoever they want but some lines have to be drawn for
the landscaping at least .

@Teak- Having never lived in a rural area is it common for country folk to live in a permanent state of mild paranoia ,assuming anyone who lives within earshot or spitting distance of a neighbour will ‘know all yer bizniss’.

I’m genuinely intrigued as it obviously has a material influence on spatial policy within our society in your view.

@teak wrote:

I see nothing wrong with self-generation in rural areas.
The appearance of the turbine need not be as ugly as some existing ones.
The argument that you give on creating a false market is not really all of the story.
Many of us would say that the existing electricity market is patently false in terms of unit prices. I think these would drop for everyone,especially those industrial users of close to wind generators, had we only better energy planning and more control over the ESB.
Saving carbon (and a lot of other more dangerous SOx & NOx) emissions from Moneypoint may be cheaper to the national economy than saving it from the burps of our national animal — upon whom the livelihoods of maybe 200,000
households directly depend . . .

For turbines to be effective they have to be of such a significant scale that you couldn’t live beside one or within hundreds of meters of one such is the noise they emit; I have no objection to farmers building wind turbines outside areas of outstanding natural beauty or important bird habitats. What I am against is the site farming industry; which leads to largely urban dwellers buying sites with or without planning consent and producing significantly more carbon in a year by their extended commute than any token windmill would produce in 1,000 years.

@teak wrote:

I do not think that acceptance of people’s right to live in a rural area will cause failure to a scheme of NAMA plot sales along the lines indicated by you because the price of these plots would be much cheaper.
People with the desire to have a healthy home environment without the squinting windows of neighbours will pay an extra premium.
A possible issue not raised is design harmony amongst the various new home built on the same area of land.
Left to the individual homesteaders, it is likely that there would be a lot of different shapes and sizes of homes (designed by some local “builder’s draughtsman”) with little relation between them and no coherent landscaping plan for the whole scheme. I don’t want to deny anyone design freedom or their right to hire whoever they want but some lines have to be drawn for
the landscaping at least .

Nobody is proposing to stop anyone from purchasing an existing dwelling in a rural area, or any farmer from building a new house on their farm. The aim of the policy is to see the supply input in the housing market restricted to only land considered suitable for development by professional planners as being possible to develop unless the applicant works the land. To ensure that people that want to self build continue to have the ability to do so it is proposed that NAMA make land available. The only losers in this are those that made a living from site farming i.e. securing consent to build and then selling the consent to a third party or those who bought unzoned land as opposed to zoned land for a multiple of its true worth as agricultural land.

The national interest dictates that the oversupply in the housing market is corrected; the economy is essentially mired in a property recession and having 30% of planning consents or real demand constituting new supply under those circumstances is gross economic mismanagement when one piece of legislation could net close to €200m p.a. to service the NAMA loanbook.

@Teak- Having never lived in a rural area is it common for country folk to live in a permanent state of mild paranoia ,assuming anyone who lives within earshot or spitting distance of a neighbour will ‘know all yer bizniss’.

I’m genuinely intrigued as it obviously has a material influence on spatial policy within our society in your view.

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 this became government policy, it would clearly inhibit the granting of PP by planning officers to people who own a plot (naturally still zoned agricultural) in the countryside.
Functionaries need clear lines of decision-making.
I think that they’d end up making it harder for people with a desire to “go country”.

That aside, I feel that your sums are very hopeful.
Presumably, you think that demand would be stimulated by the existence of the new NAMA plots for sale.
Frankly, all that will stimulate demand – from those who may have the means – is a damn cheap price.
1/8 acre plots would be lucky to get €25,000 right now.
Please explain how you get the handsome figure of €200 million per annum.

I’ve got nothing against more construction action if there is demand for it.
But investment in productive (and employment-generating) enterprise seems to me to be a better way — you get the money to swirl around through more people that way.
And, frankly, once you get outside of Ireland whose finance lenders seem both intoxicated by their own importance and deluded in their valuation of real estate, it is easier to raise capital for good manufacturing ideas.

@ tommyt :
A sense of privacy ought be a consideration for spatial planners.
I know that we can’t go on making more strings of houses along country roads, I accept that.
But if we are to have cluster development then we ought not be heaped upon one another.
There is enough land around for some space for all of us.
Neither ought rural amenities be neglected, as it is usually the absence of these that provokes such a strong interest by some people in other peoples’ affairs.
I am sure that if you talk to friends who grew up in rural villages, they will echo my concern for a good measure of personal & family privacy in any village house they had to live in.

@teak wrote:

If this became government policy, it would clearly inhibit the granting of PP by planning officers to people who own a plot (naturally still zoned agricultural) in the countryside.
Functionaries need clear lines of decision-making.
I think that they’d end up making it harder for people with a desire to “go country”.

In no other country in Northern Europe can you simply build a house in the middle of the country unless you are a farmer; if you work in a town you are urban and your needs need to reflect that unless you wish to purchase an existing house in the country.

@teak wrote:

1/8 acre plots would be lucky to get €25,000 right now.

That is the exact problem and why the market is so weak; there is no value attached to a planning consent; a house in an entirely unsuitable location 3 miles from anywhere has a similar value to a site at the edge of a town where development is suitable. By creating a clear set of rules the market can discount to agricultural values land of that class and apply residential values in a safer fashion without a third of all demand being new supply on unzoned land.

@teak wrote:

Please explain how you get the handsome figure of €200 million per annum.

Construction costs 1,500 per sq m; house 200 sq m – build cost €300k – cost of site 15 – 25% of build cost i.e. €50,000 – €75,000; number of units 3,500 = range €175m – €262.5m

@teak wrote:

I’ve got nothing against more construction action if there is demand for it.
But investment in productive (and employment-generating) enterprise seems to me to be a better way — you get the money to swirl around through more people that way.
And, frankly, once you get outside of Ireland whose finance lenders seem both intoxicated by their own importance and deluded in their valuation of real estate, it is easier to raise capital for good manufacturing ideas.

When the state has purchased loans with a face value of €77bn it is not like you can just write it off; the state needs to recover its money; it is worth holding land that will have a real value such as large city centre development sites such as the Opera Centre in Limerick or Liam Carrolls holdings in North Wall into the medium term; when you are holding a landbank where an average of a €1m per acre was paid for land that could only be described as wildly speculative; you need to get a return from it; in this case by carving it up into a new class of land; sites with OPP to give people the freedom to engage a designer and select their own construction team. Unlike tenanted commerical property land doesn’t pay much rent if any; with most of this land if this isn’t its use there will not be a use for decades.

The choice is simple does the taxpayer need to be forced to hold land it doesn’t want just to allow people to build in places they would not have been allowed to in any other northern European state; each one off built removes demand for one NAMA site except in very specific circumstances.

Okay, time for a reality check here.

Once off houses may represent 30% of the housing market, but essentially these are two storey developments with around 30% site coverage and a plot ration of less 0.5 : 1

To get any really decent return on the land you need your plot ratio up at a multiple of your site – 3.5 to 5 :1

With 50% site coverage and a plot ration of 5:1 to one that’s a ten storey tower – now ye’re talkin’!

ONQ.

@onq wrote:

Okay, time for a reality check here.

Once off houses may represent 30% of the housing market, but essentially these are two storey developments with around 30% site coverage and a plot ration of less 0.5 : 1

To get any really decent return on the land you need your plot ratio up at a multiple of your site – 3.5 to 5 :1

With 50% site coverage and a plot ration of 5:1 to one that’s a ten storey tower – now ye’re talkin’!

ONQ.

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.

This would be a site coverage of 0.367 and a plot ratio of 0.66. Taking private open space requirements at 25 sq m per bed room the site with 285 sq m of private open space would have enough space for an 11.66 bedroom house to give a true sense of rus en urbe. To address town densities a certain portion of any holding of this size could be retained to construct higher density units down the line when a solid floor has been put under the market and lending is back to normal levels.

In terms of return; the state is well protected on most of this land in that whilst the banks lent about €1m per acre on it the book value of it at purchase was probably a discount of 70% of that costs if that OR €300,000 per acre; if the state sold 8 plots at an average of €50,000 after roads were put in then €400,000 would be the net return or put another way any net price above €37,500 after legal and agents fees breaks even from the component of the portfolio where analysts have pencilled in a near 100% loss of acquisition costs.

One stroke of a pen to get rid of 3,500 plots a year; and no over dependence on any individual holding should land be made available on the edge of every town where NAMA has holdings; which as we know from the Ghost Estate map is just about everywhere outside Tehran.

Construction costs 1,500 per sq m;
house 200 sq m – build cost €300k –
cost of site 15 – 25% of build cost i.e. €50,000 – €75,000;
number of units 3,500 = range €175m – €262.5m

These figures are really nonsense, PVC.
However anxious you are and however strongly you feel on helping a resurgence in the economy, you have to do it with a coldly realistic head.

A builder who can’t bring in a house for less than €100/sq ft (€80 for me) is going to be dog idle.
Houses like this will be nowhere near 200 sq m = 2,153 sq ft in size. 1,600 sq ft max more likly.
None of the one-off house people could — nor would — pay €50,000 – €75,000 for a village plot.
You will not get 3,500 takers per year at the present state of employment.
Don’t you know yet that most people building in the countryside are doing so with a site given to them by their families ?
They could not afford to buy sites market rates for such a site in the last 12 years — and have less chance now with cash being so scarce.
Owning a site with PP gives them enough leverage (via the site’s collateral value) to raise a mortgage that might otherwise be beyond their ability. Local councillors understand this situation intimately.
They will never support an idea that would make it harder/longer for these people to start building their own house.
Not just for the family site owners but also for the sake of the small builders.

That aside, you are still having fantasies about getting 8 houses per acre of village edge land.
The demand – which is largely unsupported by building lobbies, of course – to have land near villages for allotments, non-GAA pitches, tennis courts – even cricket greens for villages holding a share of Indian/Pakistani/Aus/NZ/ZA immigrants – and pram walks has to be taken note of by local councillors also.

You have to realise that there is no quick asset-sale fix to our national property blowout.
The collapse of demand for property is largely now down to the high numbers of unemployed.
Getting people jobs has to come first before the property market, the new car market, the retail market or any other secondary sector of the economy.

@teak wrote:

Construction costs 1,500 per sq m;
house 200 sq m – build cost €300k –
cost of site 15 – 25% of build cost i.e. €50,000 – €75,000;
number of units 3,500 = range €175m – €262.5m

These figures are really nonsense, PVC.
However anxious you are and however strongly you feel on helping a resurgence in the economy, you have to do it with a coldly realistic head.

Burtonport co Donegal http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=340742&search=1

If sites are quoted at €45k in locations like this; commuter belt can acheive those types of valuation as an absolute floor if residential development is limited to zoned land only in future.

@teak wrote:

A builder who can’t bring in a house for less than €100/sq ft (€80 for me) is going to be dog idle.
Houses like this will be nowhere near 200 sq m = 2,153 sq ft in size. 1,600 sq ft max more likly.

You could be right on build cost being deliverable at a lower price; however taking something well built with a feature staircase; quality bathrooms and kitchen you could easily hit that number; whilst labour costs have fallen materials haven’t anywhere near as much and won’t because most of the World is well on the road to recovery.

@teak wrote:

None of the one-off house people could — nor would — pay €50,000 – €75,000 for a village plot.

Moving into Sallins a single site is quoted at €185k http://www.daft.ie/searchsale.daft?id=396198

Yes the site is bigger but the price is equivelent to 1/4 acre sites in the bubble years

Quality parcel of land extending to 4.25 acres / 1.72 hectares with good frontage being sold subject to planning permission to suitable applicants. This is a wonderful opportunity to acquire a beautiful property in a sought after setting.

One off house local FF mafia only need apply.

@teak wrote:

Don’t you know yet that most people building in the countryside are doing so with a site given to them by their families ?
They could not afford to buy sites market rates for such a site in the last 12 years — and have less chance now with cash being so scarce.

The options for those ion a budget are simple; buy an existing house in a foreclosure, buy a house from a developer who is discounting heavily or buy a site from NAMA; if sites in Burtonport are €45k then the market will dictate what sites are worth. Take average couples combined earnings as being €80k; modest build cost for 1,500 sq ft at your rate of €100 per sq foot and add €50k for the site and with a 10% deposit the loan to earnings is only 2.25:1. With supply controlled going forward they are a lot more likely to have an asset that will at worst be stable in value.

@teak wrote:

Owning a site with PP gives them enough leverage (via the site’s collateral value) to raise a mortgage that might otherwise be beyond their ability. Local councillors understand this situation intimately.
They will never support an idea that would make it harder/longer for these people to start building their own house.
Not just for the family site owners but also for the sake of the small builders.

I think looking at the way the country has been run for the last 10 years we need to focus on the national picture and not the Kilgarvin way of running a country. The deficit needs to be cut and anything from NAMA that comes in will ensure that national services such as education, healthcare and policing will face less painful cuts.

@teak wrote:

That aside, you are still having fantasies about getting 8 houses per acre of village edge land.
The demand – which is largely unsupported by building lobbies, of course – to have land near villages for allotments, non-GAA pitches, tennis courts – even cricket greens for villages holding a share of Indian/Pakistani/Aus/NZ/ZA immigrants – and pram walks has to be taken note of by local councillors also.

Talking about master planned sites that equate to ‘New Towns’ such as the scale; I would fully agree with you; however the proposal is restricted to small holdings at the edge of existing towns no larger than 10 acres in size which would see a maximum of 80 houses not place much strain on a town with an existing population of 3,000 plus; these are all on lands that are effectively valued at nil. Bear in mind that developers were developing at 20 to the acre on similar sites only a few years ago; I would have more worry of the environmental lobby saying the densities are too low.

@teak wrote:

You have to realise that there is no quick asset-sale fix to our national property blowout.
The collapse of demand for property is largely now down to the high numbers of unemployed.
Getting people jobs has to come first before the property market, the new car market, the retail market or any other secondary sector of the economy.

87% of the population are still working; I know in the built environment field u/e is significantly worse than most sectors and it often feels like we have fallen off a cliff. However for those working for large successful companies many of them have never had it so good; wages in line with where they were 5 years ago but prices significantly cheaper. I am not saying for a second that we will hit medium term average output of 40,000 units inside the next 5 years.

What I am saying is that a significant factor undermining the market is that a planning free for all is removing 35% of actual demand at a time when confidence is in real trouble; if the 35% of demand going into one off houses were paying down loans it would eat into the supply over-hang which is keeping the market in a perilous state. You simply cannot create 3,500 new permissions each year on unzoned land without removing other supply if you want to see a sustainable recovery.

You have a very great deal to learn about the world if you still buy CSO statistics on employment and incomes.
To say nothing of Irish auctioneers’ quoted prices.

Were I cynical, I’d just ask you to lead us all out yourself and buy such a plot, build a stylish house on it financed on your €80,000 annual household income and then sell it on at a profit in 5 years time, when sustained recovery will have set in.
But I know what it is to be pinned down in life by debt.
And I would not wish it on anyone, however wrong or however loud they were.
It’s a show-stopper.
And a cruel waste of life.

I hope that you cop yourself on with this idea.

The idea is basic restrict supply; ban one off houses; watch the oversupply on the market see all demand directed towards it. Negative equity will persist until such time as the over-supply is drained down.

The idea on making large sites available is a carrot for those that cannot accept developer led product and feel the need to instruct their own design team; giving local agents copies of land registry maps with a basic road layout and an indicate plot carve up would cost very little money.

Why I wouldn’t go down this route is that I live in an apartment and will develop two houses next year as buy to let investments; an urban setting is always better for getting solvent tenants. I don’t expect everyone to live in the middle of a city; hence why I propose a choice for those who want a reasonable amount of space. Just not at the cost of adding further unwanted supply to a dramatically over supplied market.

I can’t help feeling that this principle of yours is missing something obvious.

The whole point of NAMA was that it bought assets at a discount.

The idea was it would hold these assets and then dispose of them.

It was subsequently revealed that we had paid more than we should.

If we hadn’t the banks would have had to raise more capital.

Your suggestion seems to be sell now at any cost because the land is worthless.

I thought the principle was to wait until the values rose taking a long term market view.

Because otherwise we’ll have bought at a discount and sold at a loss, making the NAMA process a failure.

Correct me if I’ve missed something here PVC King…

ONQ.

The idea behind NAMA was to take all large scale property loans off the banks balance sheet; when the initial due diligence samples were taken it was quickly realised that marking the loans to net present value would put the banks out of business; hence the flawed concept of ‘medium term value’ or in plain english what the loans may at some future point be worth when the market recovers closer to a more long term equilibrium position. Just to be clear this only relates to the development land portfolio and not the wider portfolio involving completed buildings and property investments which were in the main I understand marked to market.

The valuation of property is problematic at the best of times in that it relies entirely on comparable transactions to establish what a willing buyer may pay a willing seller having acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion. In short no transactional evidence existed for the period late 2008 through mid 2010; that could prove that any transaction on any development land at the speculative extreme of the market; was in accordance with the principles of prudence in terms of buying into a massive supply overhang; or sellers acting prudently selling into a market where only fire sale offers were available. Outside prime city centres you probably could systematically apportion a nil value to virtually the entire NAMA commuter belt portfolio in its current use; i.e. to be sold for redevelopment by a professional developer.

Where the proposal I have is entirely different is that it involves changing the land use sub-class from medium scale professional developer holding to a semi finished product where consumers of ‘buy to occupy property’ could buy in accesible plot sizes which would be much smaller chunks than are currently available on zoned develpment land and then engage their own design team to convert from OPP to FPP and a place to call home. It is about taking an asset sub-class where there is no demand and altering the subject properties to one where demand can be created by turning off the most comparable supply which currently undermines the market to the extent of 35% of all planning consents granted.

Any clearer?

Not really.

I understand what you mean, but my point is that you seem to be willing to sell the land now at a low price for relatively low density development instead of waiting for the market to recover and going for higher density development.

That means that land bought for a haircut price, but still over-valued possibly will be sold befroe its value has recovered.
Thats the financial end of it compromised.

Then you’re proposing single dwellings on the land.
This is despite all best practice urging us to develop at higher densities.

To give effect ot this strategy, you are telling people [correct me if I’m wrong here] that they can only build on NAMA’d land.
I don’t think thsi strategy will fly.

I would like to offer a different scenario.

NAMA’d lands are reassessed to see whether high density development is viable on them – then accord them that status.
There is an embago on granting one off permissions on unservices and unzoned land remote from schools and amenities etc.
One off housing is only allowed on already zoned land, but not necessarily NAMA’d land.

There is a risk that whatever strategy is adopted, costs will rise – in the sense that many of the above get the sites for little money because its their families’ agricultural land or because its unzoned, etc.
I’m worried that raising costs for whatever reason will mean that the one off housing market /self build market will simply stop and that will put an end to the domestic construction sector.

My own views is that if NAMA’d land is to be used at all, even at this low price point, we should be seeking the highest possible densities commensurate with residential amenity and build them to the highest sustainable standard.
That way, even if the initial price is low, the quality of the built work and its “sustainability index” will be high.
This will be a Good Thing in time.

ONQ.

I understand what you mean, but my point is that you seem to be willing to sell the land now at a low price for relatively low density development instead of waiting for the market to recover and going for higher density development.

That means that land bought for a haircut price, but still over-valued possibly will be sold befroe its value has recovered.
Thats the financial end of it compromised.

The financial end of it is already completely compromised; an Article in the IAVI in late 2004 titled “Faith, Hope and Charity” basically celebrated all that was wrong in Irish land markets, Faith being unlimited economic growth, hope being buying unzoned land at inflated values outside the development frontier and charity being the rezoning taking place; sadly there is enough zoned land in most locations to last 30 years at medium term development levels and in some for up to 100 years. I will outline below where I see higher density being appropriate and where the taxpayer should simply try to unwind the collosal losses currently consituting a massive hole on the Irish Banking sector following transfer to Nama which was inflicted by the “Faith, Hope and Charity” philosophy.

Then you’re proposing single dwellings on the land.
This is despite all best practice urging us to develop at higher densities.

Probably 75% of the value is in holdings that will over the next 5 – 20 years be suitable for for higher density development; these lands must be retained for development on conventional developer led lines through masterplans such as Adamstown. The other 25% which should never have been rezoned if development plans were prudent should be divided up in to plots for sale; to put how small an mount of land we are talking about into context; at an eighth of an acre to make 3,500 plots available per year you are talking about less than 450 acres or 4,500 acres across 26 counties over a 10 year period. In total you are talking about slighly more than one third of total unit completion in 2007. With one off housing the equivelent number would be somewhere between 50,000 – 70,000 acres over an equivelent period.

To give effect ot this strategy, you are telling people [correct me if I’m wrong here] that they can only build on NAMA’d land.
I don’t think thsi strategy will fly.

All zoned land can be built upon once the planners give FPP; it is simply to correct the situation where the country has completely over-zoned development land and yet government policy allows additional development on unzoned land. Does that not strike you as totally nuts?

NAMA’d lands are reassessed to see whether high density development is viable on them – then accord them that status.

I totally agree with this; hence the 75% retain : 25% alter asset sub-class proposal.

There is an embago on granting one off permissions on unservices and unzoned land remote from schools and amenities etc.
One off housing is only allowed on already zoned land, but not necessarily NAMA’d land.

Agreed subject to local planning consent being forthcoming; this accomplishes the goals of reducing the over-hang of zoned land and the perception that development land has reached a maximum level that is being reduced and not that all land in the state is capable of development.

There is a risk that whatever strategy is adopted, costs will rise – in the sense that many of the above get the sites for little money because its their families’ agricultural land or because its unzoned, etc.

If it is zoned it is rightly or wrongly deemed fit for development; the market will find its own level and one would expect that in the context of a glut of development land on the market that prices will be reasonable; you may see site prices in Donegal or Leitrim at €25k for a site and in the hinterland of Dublin at €75k. Affordability is no longer the issue it was; a freind recently went to Barcelona to buy a flat; found one liked it; went to a bank and they declined the loan but said have a look at these 20 similar properties we will fund any of these which in the end he bought one of at a not disimilar price. Designing ones home is a privilage it is not a right and there is no question that there are plenty of existing homes available at very attractive prices.

My own views is that if NAMA’d land is to be used at all, even at this low price point, we should be seeking the highest possible densities commensurate with residential amenity and build them to the highest sustainable standard.
That way, even if the initial price is low, the quality of the built work and its “sustainability index” will be high.

For the majority of lands this is appropriate particularly those driven by transport improvements i.e. Adamstown, Middleton etc which have seen substantial public transport improvements. The disposal prices in some locations will be only a small part of the equation; take a site sold for €25k in an area where valuers attribute nil value; that is a gain of €25k to the exchequer, apportion a €100k build cost; €13,500 in vat; €10,000 in professional fees which at least €3k will be paid in income tax. Add in a builder who earns €40k and pays €10k tax as opposed to taking €20k in benefits . That is a net €71,500 to the exchequer.

The current scenario sees sites in Donegal at €45k and Sallins at €185k with probably much of the design work done as nixers, without PI cover in many cases. Ask your self the question do you want a floor under the real estate market, do you want everything in the open or do you want a free for all with most of the action in the shadows?

I think we’re singing from the same hymn sheet PVC King – its mainly a matter of getting the harmonies right.
I’ll add to that, that the designing needs to be done by competent designers and we need to be using Smart Growth principles to design townscapes not housing estates – not anymore.

This will incur commmttments to fund public sector activities in new communities, like Garda stations, clinics, fire services, etc.

🙂

ONQ.

By increasing the population of towns it makes it a lot harder not to retain essential community assets such as fire and police stations and when the health sector gets reformed primary healthcare centres.

In terms of townscapes I fully agree that this will happen for the reason that unlike the bubble years you will not with the exception of maybe 10 large new towns / major inner city regeneration schemes see phases of 100 houses / flats delivered at a time in individual phases; how many developments of 300 plus units were sold off plans in their entirity before the first units were delivered? This will not happen becuase developments on this scale will probably be sold in tranches of 10% yoy so that design standards will need to be much higher as the consumer will see how eacwith the exception of the first phase see how each subsequent phase looks in reality vs renders and more critically the build quality.

Higher standards will have higher build cost making it vital that a floor is put under land price market to allow for higher quality.

There is a once in a generation opportunity to change the nature of the residential housing industry by changing

1. One off houses to edge town zoned land; closer to essential services
2. Commuter belt development from frenetically developed 1980’s South East of England type estates to 21st century townscapes
3. New towns / large urban regeneration to be plugged into new transport infrastructure

I think we need to start with

1. A root and branch review of the National Spatial Strategy.
2. A reduction in total numbers of Councils and members of Councils.
3. The appointment of a Director for National Spatial Strategy.
4. The development of a National Economic Strategy – as opposed to a 4-year Budget
5. The appoinment of a Director for National Economic Strategy.

I suggest the last point to implement point nubmer 4.
I suggest both to keep the meddling hands of Gombeen men politicians away from the means of returning our economy to health.

The first three points are related to the concept of planning development on a national level.
The lack of a Director of National Spatial Planning shows what a lame-duck paper exercise the original plan was.
It opened the floodgates for Gombeen Counsellors in every botharín hamlet to outrageously grand development that was unsustainable.

ONQ.

New Paulson fund seeks dollars in the desert
Firm raised about $315 million in late 2010 for real-estate bets

SAN FRANCISCO (MarketWatch) — John Paulson, head of hedge-fund giant Paulson & Co., turned bullish on the U.S. housing market in early 2010. Now he’s got a fund that’s betting on a rebound.

One of the firm’s latest projects has taken it into the Sonoran Desert in the American Southwest, in search of empty residential-development lots.

In November, the firm finished raising capital for the Paulson Real Estate Recovery Fund, gathering roughly $315 million in commitments from investors, according to two people familiar with the situation.

Bay Area luxury homes are hot sellersHouses selling for more than $2 million spiked in 2010 in the San Francisco Bay Area, with the most pricey home sold in San Francisco for $15.5 million. Pui-Wing Tam talks with Stacey Delo.
The vehicle is a private-equity fund, rather than a hedge fund. This means Paulson makes capital calls to investors when opportunities arise. It also means investors are locked in for many years.

Paulson seeded the fund with some of his own money and brought in Michael Barr, a former real-estate, private-equity specialist at Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. /quotes/comstock/11i!lehmq (LEHMQ 0.04, 0.00, -0.94%) , to run it.

One of the fund’s main strategies is to buy undeveloped tracts of land that already have environmental and building permits. Roads, sewers and electricity may also be in place, but not homes, according to one of the people familiar with the fund.

If the real-estate market recovers enough for developers to start building more new houses, this may be the type of land they buy first. That’s because a lot of the costly, time-consuming preparation work already has been done, the person explained.

Such a recovery may take years to materialize, if at all. TrimTabs Investment Research warned Thursday that the housing market is unlikely to recover for five or six more years.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/new-paulson-fund-seeks-dollars-in-the-desert-2011-01-27

A paved road is surrounded by weeds in an unfinished subdivision in Coolidge, Ariz.
In the meantime, the Paulson fund has the flexibility to hold onto land. That’s because investors in the fund are committed for multiple years and the land is purchased with no leverage, the person added.

It is pretty logical that they are buying land that is already zoned and serviced versus the faith, hope and charity nonsense that has destroyed the irish land market.

Totally agree, so long as the services themselves have been placed on appropriate tracts of land.

There is a tendency to place zonings on a pedestal, but they have to be carefully considered.

There is even a whole school of though that they are crude instruments for planning work.

They may promote single use developments when mixed use is known to work better.

ONQ.