Planning Policies and Housing Development: Evaluating Ireland’s Fast-Track Planning Scheme 2017–2021
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Neoliberalism and Urban Planning Policy
2.2. The Practice of Fast-Track Planning Schemes
2.3. The Evolution of Irish Planning Policy and Housing Development
3. The Irish Context
3.1. Neoliberalism and Ireland’s Planning System: Political–Economic Implications
3.2. Housing Development in County Dublin: Current State, Trends, and State Interventions
3.3. The Strategic Housing Development Scheme: Context, Implementation, and Operational Changes
- Minimum threshold of 100 residential units or 200 student bedspaces;
- Alignment with local development plan policies;
- Pre-application consultation requirements;
- Enhanced documentation standards;
- Submission of specific design and density requirements [46]
4. Methodology
4.1. Research Design
4.2. Data Collection
4.3. Data Analysis
4.3.1. Level 1: Planning Permission Outcomes and Early Development Stages
- Number of applications submitted;
- Approval rates;
- Processing times;
- Geographical distribution of applications;
- Types of proposed developments.
4.3.2. Level 2: Development Progress: Commencement vs. Non-Commencement
- Commencement rates and timelines;
- Geographical distribution of SHD developments;
- Number of housing units and types;
- Bedspace analysis;
- Student accommodation and co-living developments;
- Housing capacity in houses and apartments.
5. Results
5.1. Effectiveness of the SHD Scheme: Planning Permission Outcomes and Early Development Stages
5.1.1. Geographical Distribution of Applications and Types of SHD Applications
5.1.2. Approval Rates and Processing Times
5.1.3. Judicial Reviews and Quashing of Permissions
5.1.4. Summary of Early Development Indicators
5.2. Effectiveness of the SHD Scheme: Implications on County Dublin’s Housing Development
5.2.1. Commencement Rates and Average Time to Commencement by Development Types
5.2.2. Commenced vs. Un-Commenced Developments: Residential Units
5.2.3. Commenced vs. Un-Commenced Developments: Residential Capacity
- Student Accommodation and Shared Living-Related Developments
- b.
- BTR and Standard Developments
5.2.4. Commenced vs. Un-Commenced Developments: Spatial Distribution and Local Authority-Level Analysis
5.2.5. Summary of Implications for Housing Market: Development Progress Trends and Challenges
6. Discussion and Conclusions
6.1. Evaluation of the SHD Scheme’s Effectiveness
6.2. Policy Recommendations for Planning Reform and Implications for Future Planning Policy
6.3. Addressing International Practice and Academic Debates
6.4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Aalbers, M.B. The Financialization of Housing: A Political Economy Approach; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Lennon, M.; Waldron, R. De-democratising the Irish planning system. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2019, 27, 1607–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldron, R. Financialization, Urban Governance and the Planning System: Utilizing ‘Development Viability’ as a Policy Narrative for the Liberalization of Ireland’s Post-Crash Planning System. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2019, 43, 685–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McFarlane, C. De/re-densification: A relational geography of urban density. City 2020, 24, 312–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Whitehead, C.M.E.; Scanlon, K. Unlocking the Benefits and Potential of Build to Rent: A British Property Federation Report Commissioned from Savills, Academically Reviewed by LSE, and Sponsored by Barclays; London School of Economics and Political Science: London, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- United Nations. GOAL 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. Available online: https://www.unep.org/topics/sustainable-development-goals/why-do-sustainable-development-goals-matter/goal-11 (accessed on 30 October 2024).
- European Union. The Urban Agenda for the EU-European Commission 2016. Available online: https://commission.europa.eu/eu-regional-and-urban-development/topics/cities-and-urban-development/urban-agenda-eu_en (accessed on 30 October 2024).
- Williams, B.; Nedovic-Budic, Z. The real estate bubble in Ireland. Policy context and responses. Urban Res. Pract. 2016, 9, 204–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, B.; Nedović-Budić, Z. Transitions of Spatial Planning in Ireland: Moving from a Localised to a Strategic National and Regional Approach. Plan. Pract. Res. 2020, 38, 639–658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eshel, S.; Hananel, R. Centralization, neoliberalism, and housing policy central–local government relations and residential development in Israel. Environ. Plan. C Politics Space 2019, 37, 237–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakhour, S.; Metzger, J. From a “Planning-Led Regime” to a “Development-Led Regime” (and Back Again?): The Role of Municipal Planning in the Urban Governance of Stockholm. Disp-Plan. Rev. 2018, 54, 46–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- MacLaran, A.; Kelly, S. Irish neoliberalism and neoliberal urban policy. In Neoliberal Urban Policy and the Transformation of the City: Reshaping Dublin, 1st ed.; MacLaran, A., Sinéad, K., Eds.; Palgrave Macmillan London: London, UK, 2014; pp. 20–36. [Google Scholar]
- Murphy, E.; Fox-Rogers, L.; Grist, B. The political economy of legislative change: Neoliberalising planning legislation. In Neoliberal Urban Policy and the Transformation of the City: Reshaping Dublin; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014; pp. 53–65. [Google Scholar]
- Redmond, D.; Yang, H. The Centralization of Planning Policy: The Case of Apartment Development. In Housing in Ireland: Beyond the Markets; Sirr, L., Ed.; Institute of Public Administration: Dublin, Ireland, 2022; pp. 213–227. [Google Scholar]
- Russell, P.; Williams, B. Irish urban policy: From benign neglect to national strategic planning. In A Modern Guide to National Urban Policies in Europe, 1st ed.; Zimmermann, K., Fedeli, V., Eds.; Edward Elgar Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2021; pp. 58–86. [Google Scholar]
- Williams, B. Development-led Systems and the Pivotal Role of Real Estate Interests. In Planning and Real Estate, 1st ed.; Williams, B., Ed.; Lund Humphries: London, UK, 2019; pp. 30–45. [Google Scholar]
- Disch, W.; Egan, P.; Kenny, E.; McQuinn, K. Contrasting Housing Supply in Ireland, Northern Ireland and the Rest of the United Kingdom; ESRI: Dublin, Ireland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marshall, T. The Remodeling of Decision Making on Major Infrastructure in Britain. Plan. Pract. Res. 2013, 28, 122–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ruming, K. Urban Regeneration in Australia: Policies, Processes and Projects of Contemporary Urban Change; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Jessop, B. Liberalism, Neoliberalism, and Urban Governance: A State–Theoretical Perspective. Antipode 2002, 34, 452–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daly, G. The neo-liberalization of strategic spatial planning and the overproduction of development in Celtic Tiger Ireland. Eur. Plan. Stud. 2016, 24, 1643–1661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baffoe, G. Neoliberal urban development and the polarization of urban governance. Cities 2023, 143, 104570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawson, J. The Use of Guarantees in Affordable Housing Investment—A selective International Review; AHURI Positioning Paper No.156; Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute: Melbourne, Australia, 2013; pp. 1–87. [Google Scholar]
- Norris, M. Varieties of Home Ownership: Ireland’s Transition from a Socialised to a Marketised Policy Regime. Hous. Stud. 2016, 31, 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Byrne, M. Generation rent and the financialization of housing: A comparative exploration of the growth of the private rental sector in Ireland, the UK and Spain. Hous. Stud. 2020, 35, 743–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fernandez, R.; Aalbers, M.B. Financialization and housing: Between globalization and Varieties of Capitalism. Compet. Change 2016, 20, 71–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wijburg, G.; Waldron, R. Financialised Privatisation, Affordable Housing and Institutional Investment: The Case of England. Crit. Hous. Anal. 2020, 7, 114–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kjærås, K. The politics of urban densification in Oslo. Urban Stud. 2023, 61, 40–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zanotto, J.M. The role of discourses in enacting neoliberal urbanism: Understanding the relationship between ideology and discourse in planning. Plan. Theory 2020, 19, 104–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eraydın, A. Contradictions in the neoliberal policy instruments: What is the stance of the state? In Contradictions of Neoliberal Planning: Cities, Policies, and Politics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 61–77. [Google Scholar]
- Bibri, S.E.; Krogstie, J.; Kärrholm, M. Compact city planning and development: Emerging practices and strategies for achieving the goals of sustainability. Dev. Built Environ. 2020, 4, 100021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haarstad, H.; Kjærås, K.; Røe, P.G.; Tveiten, K. Diversifying the compact city: A renewed agenda for geographical research. Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 2023, 13, 5–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kjærås, K. Towards a relational conception of the compact city. Urban Stud. 2020, 58, 1176–1192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allmendinger, P.; Haughton, G. The Evolution and Trajectories of English Spatial Governance: ‘Neoliberal’ Episodes in Planning. Plan. Pract. Res. 2013, 28, 6–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Raco, M. Delivering Flagship Projects in an Era of Regulatory Capitalism: State-led Privatization and the London Olympics 2012. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 2014, 38, 176–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Metzger, J.; Allmendinger, P.; Oosterlynck, S. Planning Against the Political: Democratic Deficits in European Territorial Governance; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Gilbert, C.; Gurran, N. Can ceding planning controls for major projects support metropolitan housing supply and diversity? The case of Sydney, Australia. Land Use Policy 2021, 102, 105278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Natarajan, L.; Rydin, Y.; Lock, S.J.; Lee, M. Navigating the participatory processes of renewable energy infrastructure regulation: A ‘local participant perspective’ on the NSIPs regime in England and Wales. Energy Policy 2018, 114, 201–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inch, A.; Shepherd, E. Thinking conjuncturally about ideology, housing and English planning. Plan. Theory 2020, 19, 59–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inch, A. ‘Opening for business’? Neoliberalism and the cultural politics of modernising planning in Scotland. Urban Stud. 2018, 55, 1076–1092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Government of Ireland. Housing for All—A New Housing Plan for Ireland; Government of Ireland: Dublin, Ireland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Legacy, C.; Cook, N.; Rogers, D.; Ruming, K. Planning the post-political city: Exploring public participation in the contemporary Australian city. Geogr. Res. 2018, 56, 176–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waldron, R. Capitalizing on the State: The political economy of Real Estate Investment Trusts and the ‘Resolution’ of the crisis. Geoforum 2018, 90, 206–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferm, J.; Raco, M. Viability Planning, Value Capture and the Geographies of Market-Led Planning Reform in England. Plan. Theory Pract. 2020, 21, 218–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, H.; Redmond, D.; Williams, B. Starting again: National spatial planning and the quest for compact growth in Ireland. Eur. Urban Reg. Stud. 2024, 32, 09697764241287023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- An Bord Pleanála. Strategic Housing Development Planning Applications; An Bord Pleanála: Dublin, Ireland, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Martin, J.; Conneally, L.; O’Coonor, D.; Silke, D. Operation of the Strategic Housing Development Process 2017–2019: Report of the Review Group; SHD Review Group: Dublin, Ireland, 2019; p. 47. [Google Scholar]
- Grau, V.; Welch Guerra, M. Histories of Urban Planning and Political Power: European Perspectives; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2024. [Google Scholar]
2002 | 2006 | 2011 | 2016 | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DCC | Population (persons) | 495,781 | 506,211 | 527,612 | 554,554 |
Percentage Change Since Last Census (%) | 2.81% | 2.06% | 4.06% | 4.86% | |
Density (persons per km2) | 4215 | 4327 | 4526 | 4780 | |
Percentage Change From 2002 to 2016: 13.40% | |||||
DLRCC | Population (persons) | 191,792 | 194,038 | 206,261 | 218,018 |
Percentage Change Since Last Census (%) | 0.93% | 1.16% | 5.93% | 5.39% | |
Density (persons per km2) | 1511 | 1540 | 1632 | 1729 | |
Percentage Change From 2002 to 2016: 14.46% | |||||
FCC | Population (persons) | 196,413 | 239,992 | 273,991 | 296,020 |
Percentage Change Since Last Census (%) | 14.63% | 18.16% | 12.41% | 7.44% | |
Density (persons per km2) | 433 | 524 | 598 | 652 | |
Percentage Change From 2002 to 2016: 50.34% | |||||
SDCC | Population (persons) | 238,835 | 246,935 | 265,205 | 278,767 |
Percentage Change Since Last Census (%) | 8.42% | 3.28% | 6.89% | 4.86% | |
Density (persons per km2) | 1071 | 1107 | 1189 | 1260 | |
Percentage Change From 2002 to 2016: 17.65% | |||||
County Dublin | Population (persons) | 1,122,821 | 1,187,176 | 1,273,069 | 1,347,359 |
Percentage Change Since Last Census (%) | 5.75% | 5.42% | 6.75% | 5.51% | |
Density (persons per km2) | 1220 | 1285 | 1378 | 1468 | |
Percentage Change From 2002 to 2016: 20.40% |
Application Process for Standard Planning Permissions | Application Process for Planning Permissions under the SHD Scheme |
---|---|
|
|
Local Authority | Development Type | Total Applications | Approved Applications | Average Process Time (Weeks) | Approval Rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DCC | BTR | 18 | 17 | 16 | 94.4% |
BTR & Standard Development | 2 | 2 | 15 | 100.0% | |
Co-Living-Related | 9 | 5 | 14.8 | 55.6% | |
Standard Development | 44 | 36 | 15.6 | 81.8% | |
Student Accommodation-Related | 10 | 9 | 15.3 | 90.0% | |
DLRCC | BTR | 12 | 8 | 15.5 | 66.7% |
BTR & Standard Development | - | - | - | - | |
Co-Living-Related | 1 | 1 | 14.1 | 100.0% | |
Standard Development | 49 | 39 | 15.6 | 79.6% | |
Student Accommodation-Related | 6 | 6 | 15.8 | 100.0% | |
FCC | BTR | 2 | 1 | 15.9 | 50.0% |
BTR & Standard Development | - | - | - | - | |
Co-Living-Related | 2 | 2 | 15.4 | 100.0% | |
Standard Development | 28 | 22 | 16.3 | 78.6% | |
Student Accommodation-Related | - | - | - | - | |
SDCC | BTR | 7 | 6 | 17.6 | 85.7% |
BTR & Standard Development | 1 | 1 | 17 | 100.0% | |
Co-Living-Related | 1 | 0 | 14.1 | 0.0% | |
Standard Development | 25 | 19 | 15.9 | 76.0% | |
Student Accommodation-Related | 1 | 1 | 16.6 | 100.0% | |
Total | 218 | 175 | 15.7 | 80.3% |
Development Type | Approved Applications | Quashed Applications | Quashing Rate (%) |
---|---|---|---|
BTR | 32 | 5 | 15.6% |
BTR & Standard Development | 3 | 0 | 0.0% |
Co-Living-Related | 8 | 3 | 37.5% |
Standard Development | 116 | 21 | 18.1% |
Student Accommodation-Related | 16 | 2 | 12.5% |
Total | 175 | 31 | 17.7% |
Local Authority | Commenced | Un-Commenced | Total Granted-Not-Quashed |
---|---|---|---|
DCC | 33 | 23 | 56 |
DLRCC | 27 | 21 | 48 |
FCC | 12 | 6 | 18 |
SDCC | 14 | 8 | 22 |
Total | 86 | 58 | 144 |
Development Status | Local Authority | Total Housing Units | House Units | Apartment Units |
---|---|---|---|---|
Commenced | DCC | 8037 | 33 | 8004 |
DLRCC | 6508 | 909 | 5599 | |
FCC | 3283 | 399 | 2884 | |
SDCC | 5868 | 1535 | 4333 | |
Total | 23,696 | 2876 | 20,820 | |
Un-Commenced | DCC | 7435 | 4 | 7431 |
DLRCC | 4483 | 178 | 4305 | |
FCC | 4065 | 598 | 3467 | |
SDCC | 1986 | - | 1986 | |
Total | 17,969 | 780 | 17,189 | |
Total | 41,665 | 3656 | 38,009 |
Local Authority | Studio Units | One-Bedroom Apartments | Two-Bedroom Apartments | Three-Bedroom Apartments | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
DCC | 644 | 3045 | 3844 | 471 | 8004 |
DLRCC | 113 | 1790 | 3204 | 492 | 5599 |
FCC | 127 | 977 | 1622 | 158 | 2884 |
SDCC | 108 | 1436 | 2406 | 383 | 4333 |
Total | 992 | 7248 | 11,076 | 1504 | 20,820 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yang, H.; Redmond, D.; Williams, B. Planning Policies and Housing Development: Evaluating Ireland’s Fast-Track Planning Scheme 2017–2021. Land 2024, 13, 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122044
Yang H, Redmond D, Williams B. Planning Policies and Housing Development: Evaluating Ireland’s Fast-Track Planning Scheme 2017–2021. Land. 2024; 13(12):2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122044
Chicago/Turabian StyleYang, Hualuoye, Declan Redmond, and Brendan Williams. 2024. "Planning Policies and Housing Development: Evaluating Ireland’s Fast-Track Planning Scheme 2017–2021" Land 13, no. 12: 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122044
APA StyleYang, H., Redmond, D., & Williams, B. (2024). Planning Policies and Housing Development: Evaluating Ireland’s Fast-Track Planning Scheme 2017–2021. Land, 13(12), 2044. https://doi.org/10.3390/land13122044