Have people ever pondered the greater societal consequences when they counteract the expansion and development of buildings? Or when they insist on their right to natural light or call for a legal review to agree on a constitutional height for buildings? Are they aware that such acts, construed as fairly self-serving, can vastly inflame the fiscal burden? Ireland grapples with a substantial housing dearth that could only be remedied by construction of additional residences. Any unreasonable obstructions to this could burden the wider society financially. If there is no evident contravention of zoning rules, these objections, whether by individuals or residential consortia, are selfishly detrimental to the wider community.
A crucial tenet in macroeconomic theory is the ‘aggregation paradox’; benefits for an individual do not necessarily translate into communal welfare. To understand this concept, imagine a seated concert where an audience member stands to improve their own view. This prompts the person behind to stand up, causing a chain reaction, resulting in a standing crowd despite having paid to sit.
This causal chain also applies to objections against property development. These challenges limit house construction, inadvertently boosting house prices – a cost that affects society collectively. Only a handful of objectors are required to inflict an overwhelming burden on the masses.
The phenomenon termed as Nimbyism – shorthand for ‘not in my backyard’ – carries massive downsides. In a nation wracked by a severe housing crisis like Ireland, such behaviour is viewed as antisocial. It illuminates an established “I’m fine as I am” culture, where a privileged few disregard communal concerns or the broader public interest. Previously, I emphasised the concept of the committed, accountable resident cognisant of the rights and duties accompanying societal living. Analyzing current opposition to planning proposals, it seems like this consciousness is diminishing.
[ The dilemma of elder individuals and large residences: The challenge of transitioning to smaller homes amidst a housing crisis ]
The endemic issues surrounding objections pose a significant hurdle in Ireland, particularly in governmental attempts to expedite residential construction through the strategic housing development initiative. Numerous such undertakings wind up in legal disputes. On looking closely at the 228 nationwide projects granted the go-ahead under the strategic housing development system, 16 have become gridlocked due to certain legal complaints. These stalled projects individually comprise a proposed 4,151 housing units.
The situation has deteriorated over the recent months as approval for 671 apartments designated for rent at Milltown Park, Sandford Road in Dublin was annulled, along with 493 homes at Temple Hill, Blackrock, Co Dublin, and 255 residences in Killiney, Co Dublin. The proposal for constructing 852 homes on the previous site of Central Mental Hospital is held in limbo due to a singular opposition. Unfortunately, there’s a recurring pattern of such obstructions.
A culture of objectionism is thriving, with support from a plethora of solicitors yielding profitable returns. This inherently hinders economic progress and erodes the purchasing power of working individuals. The catalysts for such issues are restrictive land-use regulations, cumbersome building requirements, and constant backlash from “aggrieved” local citizens – all of which limit housing supply potential, during a time when a minimum of 60,000 new homes per year are required.
Data from 2021 demonstrates that Ireland is grappling with the steepest housing costs within the EU; we are currently 94% over the EU average. This reveals a considerable decline over the past decade.
This is typically more pronounced in regions where housing demand is more acute: areas in proximity to city centres, transportation hubs, and employment opportunities. The consequence of a market where supply is not only curtailed, but also substantially outnumbered by demand – due to demographic factors, migration, and delayed familial settlement – inevitably results in price inflation.
Latest data from the Housing Agency discloses the hardest-hit segments due to supply restrictions, part of which is attributed to our consistent objection-related issues. As always, those most vulnerable are especially affected. By analysing individual disposable income dedicated to housing, we gain insight into how exorbitant rents and high housing prices disproportionately impact ordinary citizens.
The hardship faced by private renters is pronounced, with 43.6% devoting more than one-fourth of their expendable income to accommodate their housing needs. A subgroup, amounting to 13% of all renters, or roughly one out of six, suffer even greater financial strain, with two-fifths of their earnings going towards housing. A further 7.2% allocate over half of their disposable income to accommodation expenditure.
The number of people in the private rental sector is likely inflated due to prohibitive property prices and growing interest rates, making it nearly impossible for potential first-time homeowners to enter the housing market. It is increasingly apparent that the accommodation expenses of employed individuals are taking up a larger portion of their budget, limiting their purchasing power. This surge in housing prices is partially attributable to objections raised and the associated rights exercisable.
Ireland’s inflated housing costs, which impact both renters and potential homeowners alike, will not be news to many (this topic has been reported on by various columns over the years), but it is crucial to contextualise this issue within a broader European framework. As per data from 2021, Ireland underwent the highest housing costs throughout the EU. Currently, our rates exceed the average of the bloc by a striking 94%, a considerable decline when compared to the modest surplus of 17% above the EU average witnessed in 2010. These costs are now nearly twice the average.
The apparent answer to the shortage of affordable homes is the construction of more dwellings in suitable locations and at reasonable prices. This calls for increased building in compliance with planning and zoning regulations. Understanding the inherent consequences of an outright objection follows – it leads not only to soaring prices but increased rent and delays too. So, if an objection or hindrance to a lawful development is proposed, it is advisable to reconsider. The repercussions of an objection extend beyond the individual objector, it holds ramifications for the entire community.