The CSO has reported on planning permissions for Q4 2010 and 2010 as a whole. The number of planning permissions Q4 2010 for houses is down -37.5% on Q4 2009 (3,457 to 2,159), apartments are down -47.6% (1,507 to 790) between the same periods. The overall difference is -40.6%. For 2010 as a whole, house permissions are down -56.7% and apartment permissions are down -50% on 2009. With reference to 2007, and the tail end of the boom, the number of unit permissions in 2010 has dropped -81.5% for houses (62,828 to 11,604) and 68.1% for apartments (21,569 to 6,874). The total number of planning permissions for all developments Q4 2010 was down from 5,137 to 4,373 (a drop of -14.9%). For 2010 as a whole, total permissions were down -27.6% from 2009, permissions for extensions were down -16.4%.
Given the state of the economy and property sector this isn’t any great surprise. Nor is the pattern of permissions, with 43.6% of all housing unit permissions in Q4 2010 for one-off houses. For 2010 as a whole, one-off houses accounted for 48.1% of house unit permissions (5,582 units). In 2007, one-off houses were 29.5% of all house unit permissions (18,555 of 62,828 units). One-off permissions in 2010 are thus down -69.9% from 2007 levels. In terms of what was actually built in 2010, one-off housing constituted 63.2% of all houses built – 7,914 of 12,514 (DEHLG 2011).
Regardless of the decline in one-off permissions from the height of the boom, a debate seems desirable on how sustainable this pattern of permissions/build is over the long term. On the one hand are arguments relating to individual rights, culture and ‘way of life’, and on the other, the costs of servicing one-off houses, the costs to the environment and landscape, and the vulnerability of dispersed, long commuting populations to rising oil prices. This is clearly a contentious and highly politicised issue, but then what planning issue isn’t? Our strategy so far has largely been to ignore such debates and plough on with a laissez faire approach designed to sate local demand and leverage councillor’s votes. As for whether we need to be awarding any permissions at all, given the vacancy and under-construction rates of both residential and non-residential property in the state, also seems like a debate worth having – on the one hand, the construction industry is in severe difficulties and needs investment, on the other the solution to over-supply is not more supply (and scare stories about there only being between 1 to 12 months supply in most areas by some vested interests lacks compelling evidence and credibility – see our post here).
One anticipates, given the state of the property market and the lack of access to credit for construction projects, that the planning permission figures for 2011 will continue their downward trend. At least this might give us some breathing space for thinking about what kind of planning system and pattern of development we want. The present government’s line seems to be to undo the good parts of the Planning and Development (Amendment) Act, that tried to tighten up the laissez-faire elements, and head back to the planning system that operated during the boom. If that’s the kind of planning system we want, then we deserve what its outcomes will be.
Rob Kitchin
Ireland after NAMA 
April 1, 2011 at 11:05 am
Hi Rob – wrote a similar article on rural housing, rural suicide and denialism on my blog…http://oneoffireland.wordpress.com/
April 1, 2011 at 11:25 am
“Our strategy so far has largely been to ignore such debates and plough on with a laissez faire approach designed to sate local demand and leverage councillor’s votes.”
This kind of comes down on one side of the debate! I wonder if it would be possible to develop a functional planning system that respected social heritage without being either laissez-faire or venal?
I’m conscious of the environmental and economic costs of dispersed settlement, but also of the extent to which ‘one-off housing’ may form part of a process of (re)embedding family and kinship networks that might be quite a ‘traditional’ family formation practice in Ireland – and may well have some positive social consequences.
April 1, 2011 at 12:25 pm
Jane, I am not anti-rural or anti-kin. However the countryside is littered with derelict or empty properties, with a large number for sale. Why is it unreasonable to expect rural dwellers to buy properties ahead of building a new one? It is entirely plausible to live within a short distance of relations rather than on site next door. This is the norm in urban and surburban areas and in other countries. What I’m suggesting is that buying should have priority over building unless it can be demonstrated that no suitable property is available locally – given the amount of vacant one-off properties in every area in the country, it seems difficult to justify more new build other than to satisfy personal desire over collective good.
April 2, 2011 at 10:11 am
Clearly, some one-off housing is for rural people living near relatives, but my impression is that the vast majority (in terms of value, a fortiori) is driven by lifestyle considerations — a taste for trophy houses in bucolic locations, in a settlement pattern that places you as far as possible from your nearest neighbour. This isn’t rural regeneration but rather ultra low-density suburbanisation, and is generally coupled (via multiple motor vehicles) to a thoroughly urban lifestyle (the kids may play GAA locally but work, shopping, leisure and school are predominantly based in the nearest urban centre).
And as Rob points out, even people of rural origin are sometimes infected, and will look to build the largest house on the biggest, prettiest site, and never mind that it is several miles away from relatives, rather than in the same townland or village.
In other words, this is very strongly a matter of taste and lifestyle, an affluent middle class consumption phenomenon.
April 4, 2011 at 11:23 am
I was playing devil’s advocate, a little…
I can see the sense in encouraging buying rather than building, but I think we need to know more about the quality of second hand housing stock in rural and semi-rural areas. Is it more expensive to refurbish than to start from scratch? And if so, why?
I also think we need to know more about how many rural new builds are a form of low-denisty suburbanisation, driven by people moving out of the city looking for ‘trophy houses,’ as Brendan suggests, and how many are locally driven by a desire to live close to family and kin. Personal impressions are often misleading, as we know in social science.
And I generally think that criticizing people for failing to put the common good before personal desire is a political non-starter in a country that so clearly privileges laissez-faire individualism! Especially when there is a counter narrative about de-centralized settlement as a traditional pattern in Ireland – a narrative that is not entirely without empirical support. We need to find other ways to enlist people’s support in addressing the problem.
April 4, 2011 at 8:41 pm
A lot of my impressions are based on long bike rides in the countryside near Limerick city. There is a phenomenal level of building on quiet backroads up to about 20 km from the city, and a lot of it consists of very impressive houses, some striking, others strikingly ugly, and even the ones that appear relatively modest are absolutely large and comfortable. Here is a cluster I passed yesterday, not at all exceptional.
As for the narrative about dispersed settlement patterns: there is a world of difference between isolated living with an agricultural base (i.e., subsistence farming) and a transport radius that depended on how far you could walk in a day, and choosing to commute a 60-100km round trip daily because you can afford it.
I take your point about selling these ideas to the people who can afford such houses (or make money from selling them).
April 5, 2011 at 9:02 am
I think you’re right Brendan. And good picture. I see big houses like this continuing to be built in the countryside even now – during my long commute!
And just to be ornery it seems to me I’m doing that commute precisely because I can’t afford to live somewhere within walking distance of where I need to be – as much as because I can afford to commute.
April 5, 2011 at 7:00 pm
It’s not just a good picture — I hadn’t realised what a wonderful document Google Streetview is. You can move around and explore the cluster of 6-8 really large houses, and zoom out and locate them geographically (quite near Limerick city but there are no resources of any sort that don’t need a car to get to — 6km roundtrip for a carton of milk). Move northeast up that road and you’ll find a cluster of more modest houses, perhaps 20 years older, still very suburban-escapee in ethos but without the Celtic Tiger effect.
And there is a world of difference between long-distance commuting because you can’t afford to live where it would be convenient, and choosing where to live as a form of conspicuous consumption.