Planning Policies and Housing Development: Evaluating Ireland’s Fast-Track Planning Scheme 2017–2021

Abstract

This article examines the impact of neoliberal political–economic orientations on urban planning policies through a case study of Ireland’s Strategic Housing Development (SHD) fast-track planning scheme. By evaluating SHD applications from 2017 to 2021, this study assesses the scheme’s effectiveness in housing development in County Dublin and addresses how neoliberal policies affect planning objectives. The findings reveal that, although the SHD scheme expedited planning approvals, it faced significant challenges, including high rates of judicial review and low commencement rates for approved developments. These issues hindered the scheme’s capacity to address housing shortages effectively. The research highlights that market-driven policies often shape urban development patterns in ways that misalign with policy goals, potentially compromising social equity and long-term sustainability. By exploring the tensions between planning efficiency, industry interests, and broader policy objectives, this study contributes to ongoing debates about the role of neoliberalism in urban planning. It concludes by advocating for a more integrated approach to urban governance—one that balances economic imperatives with social and environmental priorities to promote sustainable and equitable development.

1. Introduction

The Global Financial Crisis of 2007–2008 precipitated a series of economic shocks that profoundly impacted housing markets worldwide, leading to significant policy shifts in many jurisdictions. In the aftermath of the crisis, followed by austerity measures and a subsequent trend towards housing financialization during the economic recovery cycle, many countries have grappled with intensified housing affordability crises. This period has witnessed a structural transformation of economies, firms, states, and households, characterized by the increasing dominance of financial actors, markets, practices, measurements, and narratives at various scales [1].

This transformation has been particularly shaped by neoliberal policy approaches, which have fundamentally altered the relationship between state planning authorities and market forces. These changes manifested in three key ways: first, through the systematic withdrawal of direct state intervention in housing provision, reducing public housing construction by over 80% in many European countries between 1980 and 2010; second, through the deregulation of planning processes, prioritizing market efficiency over public consultation; and third, through the financialization of housing development, where housing increasingly became treated as an investment asset rather than a social good. Research by Lennon and Waldron [2] demonstrates how these shifts have led to the de-democratization of planning systems, while Waldron [3] highlights how development viability has become a powerful rationale for continued planning liberalization.

The emphasis on market-oriented solutions has manifested in several key ways: the privatization of public housing stock, the deregulation of planning processes, and the prioritization of developer interests in policy formation, often at the expense of community involvement and social equity considerations [4]. The global trend of housing financialization, in which housing is increasingly treated as an investment rather than a basic need, has been an integral part of this transformation. Since the 1980s, neoliberal policies in many countries have shifted housing from a public good to a commodity, with governments moving away from direct housing provision and adopting policies that support home ownership and regeneration [5]. By 2024, the cumulative effect of these policies has led to widespread housing affordability crises and market failures, prompting international bodies including the United Nations [6] and the European Union [7] to advocate for renewed public intervention in housing provision. And, this shift had also been pronounced in Ireland, where Williams and Nedovic-Budic [8] found that reduced state involvement in social housing development, combined with deregulation and strong fiscal incentives for private property development, played a crucial role in the property market collapse.

Ireland’s experience of a housing market bubble and subsequent crash were central to this cycle of crisis, austerity, and recovery. The country’s embrace of neoliberal planning policies during this period exemplified broader global trends, with particular emphasis on market-led solutions to housing provision and urban development [9]. As analysed by Waldron [3], this approach was characterized by significant deregulation of planning processes, reduced public sector involvement in housing delivery, and an increasing reliance on private sector initiatives to address housing needs. This trajectory has resulted in ongoing and severe problems with access to affordable housing and the changing role of the planning system [9]. The Irish context thus provides a compelling case study for examining the broader implications of neoliberal urban governance and its impact on housing policy and development.

The crisis in Ireland was exacerbated by neoliberal policy responses that prioritized market-led recovery over public intervention. Between 2008 and 2016, public housing construction fell by 91%, while housing prices increased by 75% in urban areas, creating a significant affordability gap. The government’s response epitomized neoliberal governance through three key policy shifts: the privatization of social housing delivery through housing assistance payments (increasing from EUR 15 million in 2014 to over EUR 500 million by 2019 and continuing to escalate to nearly EUR 1.1 billion by 2024), the reduction in development contributions required from private developers, and the streamlining of planning regulations to facilitate market-led housing supply.

Specifically, the country’s property market collapse in 2008 precipitated a severe housing crisis, with shortages in affordable housing that persisted over the following decade. The Irish government’s response to this crisis included the Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme (2017–2021), which embodied core neoliberal principles in its design: centralized decision-making that bypassed local democratic processes, reduced public consultation periods from 8 weeks to 5 weeks, and prioritized development viability over local planning considerations. The scheme allowed large residential developments (more than 100 residential units) to bypass local planning authorities’ administrative processes in favour of submitting planning applications directly to An Bord Pleanála (ABP), the national planning appeal board. While the scheme aimed to accelerate housing delivery, its market-oriented approach raised concerns about its impact on planning objectives and community interests. More importantly, the restructuring of such planning processes embodies neoliberal values, where economic imperatives of speed and market responsiveness are prioritized over community engagement and local governance [10,11].

The implementation of neoliberal planning policies in Ireland has had several distinct effects on the housing market [12]. These policies exhibit a strong political–economic orientation, characterized by promoting market-based solutions and deregulation, and prioritizing economic growth and private sector interests in urban development and housing policies. This emphasis on market-driven approaches and private sector interests could reduce the importance and inclusiveness of policy objectives related to public welfare in urban planning [12,13].

Ireland’s SHD scheme represents a continuation of this trend, introduced as a key response to the housing crisis yet aligned with neoliberal principles favouring deregulation and efficiency. Since late 2017, the Irish government has been launching various planning policies centred on “compact growth” that seek to shape sustainable housing development and accelerate housing delivery, including the SHD scheme. However, research reveals that these policies are motivated more by politico-economic factors—including the necessity to actively respond to the housing crisis, improve development viability, respond to market demand, and balance market supply and demand—than by sustainability-related considerations of housing [14,15,16]. Specifically, the SHD’s expedited approval processes reveal a deeper focus on market-led solutions rather than comprehensive planning objectives. Accordingly, the scheme appears more favourable to developers and investors than to meeting broader social welfare needs, as policies prioritizing rapid approvals and centralized decision-making curtail public engagement [2]. Consequently, the SHD scheme illustrates the broader dilemma in neoliberal urban governance: market-driven mechanisms may expedite development, but they often compromise social inclusivity and housing affordability. In this dysfunctional market, such approaches have had limited effect despite major costs to public finances, and at worst, potentially further inflated prices and exacerbated market problems. Recent studies suggest that greater regulation in land provision could help reduce speculation’s role in land prices, thereby lowering a key production cost [17]. However, Ireland’s current approach of tying housing supply to a speculative market in a boom/bust cycle has resulted in overpriced housing and uncertain supply, leading to recent shifts toward greater state involvement, exemplified by the establishment of the Land Development Agency (LDA) to coordinate state-controlled land for more optimal uses, particularly housing provision.

This research adopts a structured two-level analytical framework (Figure 1) to assess the SHD scheme’s effectiveness and implications. Through an analysis of planning applications from 2017 to 2021, this study provides insights into both the procedural efficiency of the scheme and its broader implications for housing development. The first level examines planning permission outcomes, focusing on application volumes, approval rates, and judicial reviews. The second level analyses development progress through commencement rates, housing typologies, and spatial distribution patterns. This structured approach enables a comprehensive evaluation of both the immediate impacts of the SHD scheme and its wider effects on housing delivery and urban development.

Through an analysis of planning applications from 2017 to 2021, this study provides insights into the effectiveness of the SHD scheme and examines the broader implications of market-driven planning policies on urban development. In particular, through studies at a micro policy level, we hope to explore in greater depth the changes identified by Aalbers [1] in the meanings and practices of planning initiatives and resulting urban and housing development patterns. Furthermore, by centralizing decision-making and reducing local and public input, the scheme reflects a wider trend in neoliberal planning systems, such as the UK’s Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects (NSIPs) and Australia’s State Significant Development frameworks. These frameworks similarly favour centralized, expedited approval processes for development projects, prioritizing efficiency over community participation and local democratic control [18,19]. By positioning the SHD scheme within this international context, this study critically examines Ireland’s fast-tracked approach to housing provision against its stated policy objectives in the context of planning policy implementation, probing whether such an approach can achieve lasting solutions to housing shortages and access.

This study addresses two primary research questions: To what extent has the SHD accelerated housing development in County Dublin, and how has its market-led approach influenced broader planning policy objectives like social equity and sustainable growth? The hypothesis guiding this inquiry posits that while the SHD scheme has achieved procedural efficiency, it may have inadvertently undermined planning objectives, particularly those centred on equitable and sustainable development. This tension reflects a fundamental challenge in neoliberal urban governance: balancing the drive for market efficiency with the need for sustainable and equitable urban development.

We argue that fast-track planning schemes such as SHD represent market-led deregulation policies that exemplify the politico-economic orientation of neoliberal urban planning. By situating the SHD within a neoliberal planning framework, this study adds to the academic discourse on neoliberal urban governance and planning outcomes. It aims to offer a nuanced understanding of how Ireland’s SHD reflects global shifts in urban governance, identifying both the strengths and potential limitations of adopting market-oriented housing policies.

This article proceeds as follows: the next section provides a comprehensive literature review exploring the penetration of neoliberalism in urban governance and its implications for planning policies. This is followed by a detailed discussion of the Irish context. The fourth section presents the methodology employed, including data collection and analysis techniques. The Results section presents findings on the SHD scheme’s impact on housing development in County Dublin, while the Discussion and Conclusions section contextualize these findings within broader debates on neoliberal urban governance and planning policy.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Neoliberalism and Urban Planning Policy

The penetration of neoliberalism in urban governance has fundamentally restructured the relationship between market forces and urban planning and development [20]. This shift has placed economic growth at the core of urban development strategies [21], enhancing the participation and discourse power of the private sector and private capital in urban planning. Concurrently, it has intensified the focus on urban competitiveness and the financialization of urban space development and utilization [21,22].

The evolution of planning systems under neoliberal governance has been particularly pronounced in countries that experienced severe property market crashes following the 2008 financial crisis. Lawson [23] noted that ineffective regulation and inappropriate incentives with inadequate planning directly contributed to property market failures in several countries, including Ireland, the US, Spain, the UK, and the Netherlands. This historical context reveals how neoliberal policies have reshaped planning systems in response to market failures, often prioritizing economic recovery over social considerations.

Under neoliberal urban governance, planning policies have adopted three characteristic features: liberalization, deregulation, and privatization [11]. In Ireland, this transformation began in the 1990s with market-based approaches to urban regeneration [12] and accelerated following the 2008 financial crisis, when policy responses increasingly emphasized private sector solutions to urban development challenges. This shift manifested in reduced state intervention in housing provision, relaxed planning requirements, and streamlined application procedures, fundamentally altering the traditional role of urban planners as defenders of public welfare [13]. Specifically, the Irish experience exemplifies broader trends in the neoliberalization of planning systems. Williams and Nedovic-Budic [8] found that reduced state involvement in social housing development, combined with deregulation and strong fiscal incentives for private property development, played a critical role in the property market collapse. Norris [24] analysed Ireland’s transition from a socialized mixed tenure model to a marketized policy regime, while Byrne [25] documented the increasing role of housing financialization and reliance on private finance. These changes contributed to what Fernandez and Aalbers [26] identified as a housing boom producing large residential overcapacity, followed by major market corrections across several countries.

The changing role of planning in housing supply has emerged as a critical issue in urban development debates. Research by Wijburg and Waldron [27] identified increased financialized privatization of affordable housing and institutional investment, with private equity funds and real estate investment trusts entering the affordable housing market. This shift represents a fundamental transformation in how housing is produced, managed, and funded, with Aalbers [1] showing how institutional investors increasingly shape housing development according to financial needs rather than social requirements. This trend marks a significant departure from historical patterns where public and affordable housing was primarily delivered through state cooperation with local authorities and social housing providers.

These market-oriented shifts have particular implications for planning systems. Waldron [3] demonstrates how development viability became a powerful rationale for continued planning liberalization in post-crisis contexts. Similarly, Lennon and Waldron [2] argue that recent planning reforms, while ostensibly aimed at improving efficiency, effectively reduce democratic oversight and enable regulatory capture by development interests. These changes reflect broader patterns identified by McFarlane [4] and Kjærås [28], who argue that market-driven planning approaches often exacerbate disparities between private and public interests, creating significant challenges for urban sustainability. The persistence of such market-oriented policies has proven particularly problematic in dysfunctional markets where interventions achieve limited effect despite major public expenditure. For instance, in Ireland, studies by Disch, Egan, Kenny, and McQuinn [17] for the Economic and Social Research Institute, suggest that greater regulation in land provision could help reduce speculation’s role in land prices, thereby lowering key production costs. However, the current policy approach continues to include multiple, often competing market-based initiatives subsidizing investors, first-time purchasers, and developers of new-build housing developments, despite evidence of inelastic supply response. This has led to a gradual shift in thinking, with recent movement towards greater state involvement through entities like the Land Development Agency (LDA), which aims to coordinate state-controlled land for more optimal uses, particularly housing provision.

Studies indicate that neoliberal involvement in both planning policy formulation and implementation [29] can compromise the achievement of broader planning objectives [30]. Key trends include a reduction in state intervention in housing provision, the relaxation of planning requirements and standards, the streamlining of planning application procedures, a diminished role of planners as public interest advocates, and enhanced private sector leadership in urban development [13].

The traditional role of urban planners as defenders of the public interest welfare is reduced while empowering the private sector’s leadership in urban development. Such market-driven planning policies tend to prioritize economic growth over social equity, with privatization and public–private partnerships impacting not only the design and development of cities but also public expenditure on essential urban infrastructure [28]. These trends have prompted urgent calls to examine how political–economic orientations under neoliberalism affect policy implementation and urban sustainability [4,31,32,33]. This is particularly relevant given the increasing evidence that market-oriented policies can exacerbate the disparity between private and public interests, posing challenges to urban sustainability [4,28].

2.2. The Practice of Fast-Track Planning Schemes

Fast-track planning schemes have emerged as governments’ response to perceived inefficiencies in traditional planning processes, reflecting broader neoliberal trends in urban governance. These schemes, characterized by streamlined processes and reduced regulatory barriers, exemplify the neoliberal emphasis on market solutions and decreased state intervention [34]. The practice of fast-track planning underscores a focus on enhancing market efficiency and competitiveness, as governments introduce these mechanisms to attract investment and stimulate economic growth by offering developers more predictable and expedited approval processes [35].

A key feature of fast-track schemes is the shift in decision-making power from local authorities to central government or specially created bodies, reflecting the neoliberal tendency towards centralization and market-oriented governance [36]. This is evident in the UK’s Nationally Significant Infrastructure Projects system (NSIPs), which centralizes decision-making for major infrastructure projects [18]. Similarly, in Ireland, Lennon and Waldron [2] argue that this centralization trend has effectively de-democratized elements of the planning system, prioritizing development interests over local concerns.

Recent debates surrounding fast-track planning schemes have centred on their efficacy, democratic implications, and long-term impacts on urban development. Proponents argue that these schemes are necessary to address pressing housing shortages and stimulate economic growth, particularly following global crises [37]. They contend that streamlined processes can accelerate the delivery of essential projects while attracting investment through increased certainty for developers [38]. However, research by Inch and Shepherd [39] reveals that this emphasis on speed often compromises meaningful public participation and local democratic processes, potentially leading to developments poorly integrated with existing communities. Proponents argue these schemes are necessary reforms to overcome perceived sluggishness and inefficiency of traditional planning processes [40]. This narrative aligns with the neoliberal emphasis on government efficiency and results-oriented management [22].

The Irish experience with fast-track planning offers particularly relevant insights. Murphy, Fox-Rogers, and Grist [13] document how the increasing emphasis on expedited processes has transformed the role of planners from public interest advocates to facilitators of development. Williams and Nedovic-Budic [8] further analyse how this shift has contributed to a broader transition from localized to strategic national planning approaches, though questions remain about the effectiveness of this centralization.

However, the emergence of fast-track planning schemes in Ireland must be understood within the broader historical context of the country’s planning system. Prior to the 2000s, Ireland’s planning framework was characterized by strong local authority control and extensive public participation, as documented by MacLaran and Kelly [12]. However, the perceived inefficiencies of this system, particularly during the Celtic Tiger period (1995–2007), led to calls for streamlined approval processes for major developments. For instance, the Strategic Development Zone (SDZ) framework, introduced in 2000, represented the first significant move toward expedited planning for large-scale developments. This was followed by the Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006, which established special procedures for major infrastructure projects. These schemes provided important precedents for the SHD program, particularly in terms of centralizing decision-making and reducing public consultation periods. However, alternative policy approaches that could stimulate more efficient use of land and housing stocks were largely neglected. These included vacant land taxes and taxes on the stockpiling of existing zoned residential lands with planning permission—measures that had been legislated for but remained inactivated as of 2024. Instead, the emphasis on expedited planning through the SHD potentially increased site values at individual locations and expanded the pipeline of potential development sites with planning permission but without generating the anticipated surges in supply. This selective approach to policy implementation reflects a broader pattern of favouring market deregulation over more interventionist measures to activate existing housing capacity.

The evolution of fast-track approaches in Ireland reflects broader shifts in planning policy priorities. While Ireland’s planning permission system is often portrayed as cumbersome and a barrier to housing development, government data from 2022 suggest a more complex picture: approximately 70,000–80,000 residential units nationwide had received planning permission but had not commenced construction, with about 40,000 in Dublin alone—representing roughly four years of housing supply. A key focus of the Housing for All Plan (2021) is to ensure that these current planning permissions are activated as quickly as possible, and this requires tackling barriers to development, including the issue of viability, which has been stated to be one of the key issues holding up apartment development [41]. This suggests that planning efficiency alone may not address core housing delivery challenges. Murphy, Fox-Rogers and Grist [13] document how the increasing emphasis on expedited processes has transformed the role of planners from public interest advocates to facilitators of development.

The debate also extends to the quality and sustainability of fast-tracked developments, with some suggesting that rapid delivery may compromise urban design quality and social outcomes [42]. Recent research by Russell and Williams [15] demonstrates how such market-responsive approaches can create tensions between development efficiency and broader planning objectives, particularly in relation to affordable housing provision and sustainable urban form. This highlights the ongoing challenge of balancing procedural efficiency with substantive planning outcomes.

Several countries have implemented fast-track planning schemes, each facing unique challenges. While Ireland’s SHD scheme aimed to accelerate housing delivery, research by Waldron [3] highlights how such initiatives can inadvertently intensify the financialization of housing development. Australia’s experience with State Significant Development frameworks provides a useful comparative perspective, with [19], highlighting how fast-track mechanisms can impact local planning autonomy and community engagement. Similarly, the UK’s NSIP system demonstrates both the potential efficiency gains and democratic accountability challenges of centralized decision-making [38]. These international examples underscore the complex trade-offs inherent in fast-track planning approaches.

Lennon and Waldron [2] argue that fast-track planning exemplifies the prioritization of economic growth over social and ecological concerns and notes the shift towards centralized, market-responsive decision-making. This trend reflects broader patterns in neoliberal urban governance, where planning processes are increasingly oriented toward facilitating market-led development rather than ensuring comprehensive community benefits. Consequently, researchers have called for examining how these neoliberal-influenced schemes shape contemporary urban planning policies and impact the balance between efficiency, equity, and sustainability in urban planning processes.

2.3. The Evolution of Irish Planning Policy and Housing Development

The transformation of Ireland’s planning system over the past three decades reflects broader shifts in urban governance approaches. Research by Norris [24] documents how Irish housing policies transitioned from a socialized mixed tenure model to a marketized regime, fundamentally altering the relationship between planning authorities and housing provision. This shift was characterized by three distinct phases: the initial move towards market liberalization in the 1990s, the property boom of the Celtic Tiger era (1995–2007), and the post-crisis reforms following 2008.

The period leading up to the 2008 financial crisis saw several significant developments in Irish planning policy. The Planning and Development Act 2000 established a more comprehensive framework for spatial planning, introducing mechanisms such as Strategic Development Zones and Part V social housing requirements. These changes represented early attempts to balance market efficiency with social housing provision. However, subsequent amendments increasingly emphasized market-oriented approaches, as Williams and Nedovic-Budic [8] analyse in their examination of Ireland’s transition from localized to strategic national and regional planning approaches.

The policy context which shaped housing supply shortages after the financial crisis has been extensively analysed. Williams and Nedovic-Budic [8] found that reduced state involvement in social housing development, combined with deregulation and strong fiscal incentives for private property development, played a critical role in the property market collapse. These findings align with Lawson’s [23] international comparative research, which identified how ineffective regulation and perverse incentives directly contributed to property market failures across multiple countries.

The post-crisis period brought renewed focus on planning reform, particularly in relation to housing delivery. Waldron [3] examines how development viability became a powerful rationale for continued planning liberalization, while Lennon and Waldron [2] argue that reforms like the SHD scheme effectively de-democratized elements of the planning system. This period also saw the emergence of new institutional arrangements for housing delivery, with Byrne [25] documenting the growing role of institutional investors and the financialization of rental housing.

Recent research has highlighted several persistent challenges in Irish housing development that helped shape the SHD scheme. Byrne [25] examines how the financialization of rental housing has influenced development patterns, identifying the emergence of institutional landlords and the growing emphasis on build-to-rent developments. Murphy, Fox-Rogers, and Grist [13] further analyse how calculative practices in residential development affect affordable housing provision, demonstrating how market-oriented approaches can limit the delivery of social and affordable units.

The relationship between planning policy and housing market outcomes has attracted particular scholarly attention. Waldron [43] demonstrates how the inter-dependent relationship between financial and real estate sectors has intensified boom–bust dynamics within urban property markets. This analysis is extended by Fernandez and Aalbers [26], who document how the financialization of housing as a commodity led to market instability and subsequent corrections. These market dynamics have significantly influenced contemporary Irish planning practice, as Russell and Williams [15] reveal in their analysis of how urban policy has evolved from “benign neglect” to strategic national planning. Williams [16] further explores how development-led systems have positioned real estate interests as pivotal actors in housing supply, often at the expense of public sector objectives like affordable housing and community resource goals.

Contemporary challenges in Irish housing development also reflect broader international trends. Wijburg and Waldron [27] note the increased financialized privatization of affordable housing and the growing role of institutional investment. This shift represents a significant departure from historical patterns of housing provision, with implications for both planning practice and housing affordability. Recent research by Ferm and Raco [44] suggests that market-driven approaches to planning and housing delivery may be exacerbating rather than resolving underlying affordability challenges.

These evolving dynamics have particular implications for fast-track planning initiatives like the SHD scheme. Lennon and Waldron [2] argue that streamlined planning processes, while aimed at increasing housing supply, may inadvertently reinforce market-oriented approaches that prioritize development viability over social outcomes. This tension between efficiency and equity remains a central challenge in contemporary Irish planning practice, reflecting broader debates about the role of planning in promoting sustainable and inclusive urban development.

3. The Irish Context

3.1. Neoliberalism and Ireland’s Planning System: Political–Economic Implications

Over the past three decades, Ireland’s contemporary urban planning has undergone significant transformations aligned with neoliberal principles, prioritizing market-driven strategies and private-sector interests [13]. This shift in governance has led to an emphasis on private-sector participation and profitability, resulting in diminished public influence over urban planning and altering the nature of urban development planning [12].

The transformation of Ireland’s planning system under neoliberal principles has been particularly evident in housing policy formation. Research by Norris [24] documents how Irish housing policies transitioned from a socialized mixed tenure model to a marketized regime, fundamentally altering the relationship between planning authorities and housing provision. This shift was characterized by reduced public-sector involvement, increased emphasis on market solutions, and growing reliance on private-sector initiatives.

Specifically, the political–economy orientation brought by neoliberalism has shaped Ireland’s housing policies, with major reductions in public provision and a near complete reliance on development interests and financial returns in the private market for housing supplies [13,16]. This has led to what Waldron [3] identifies as a prioritization of private and corporate interests in urban development and planning decisions, often at the expense of public engagement and participation. Instead, as Williams [16] argues, a pivotal role is played by real estate interests for all housing supply in such development-led systems, aiming to optimize land use at specific locations and maximize profits, often clashing with public sector objectives like affordable housing and community resource goals. In the context of inelastic supply response, this market-driven approach has proven dysfunctional, with interventions achieving limited effect despite major costs to public finances. Recent movement towards greater state involvement, exemplified by the establishment of the LDA, represents an acknowledgment of these market failures. The agency, as a commercial, state-sponsored body, was created to coordinate land within state control for more optimal uses, with a particular focus on housing provision. However, the persistence of using pro-cyclical interventions, including multiple competing market-based initiatives subsidizing investors, first-time purchasers, and developers, continues to create potential for market booms and corrections, with significant difficulties in recommencing supply processes following downturns.

3.2. Housing Development in County Dublin: Current State, Trends, and State Interventions

The housing landscape in County Dublin has undergone significant transformations in recent years, shaped by demographic changes, economic fluctuations, and evolving urban development patterns. Specifically, County Dublin experienced substantial population growth between 2002 and 2016 (

Table 1. Population and population density in County Dublin, by local authority, 2002–2016.

		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%

Data source: CSO.ie.

), with an increase of 20.40%. This demographic expansion has placed considerable pressure on the housing market, driving demand for new residential units across the county.

In response to this growing demand, the housing stock in County Dublin expanded by approximately 26.4% between 2002 and 2016. However, this growth was not uniform across the period, with a notable slowdown observed from 2011 onwards. The rate of housing stock increase declined from 11.08% in 2011 to just 2.72% in 2016, indicating a potential mismatch between housing supply and population growth. This decline reflects broader challenges in Ireland’s post-crisis housing delivery system.

One of the most significant trends in County Dublin’s housing development has been the shift towards apartment living. The proportion of apartments in the total housing stock rose from 16.2% in 2002 to 24.9% in 2016, reflecting both changing consumer preferences and the increasing influence of institutional investors in the rental sector, particularly in urban areas. This trend has been particularly pronounced in areas under the authority of the Dublin City Council (DCC), where apartments have become a dominant form of new housing development. Furthermore, geographical variations in housing development patterns are evident across County Dublin. While DCC consistently maintained the highest housing density, areas such as the Fingal County Council (FCC) experienced rapid growth in housing density, with an increase of 58.65% between 2002 and 2016. These spatial disparities reflect the complex interplay of factors including land availability, planning policies, and localized demand patterns.

The role of the state in shaping housing development in Ireland has evolved in response to changing economic conditions and policy priorities. In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, which significantly impacted Ireland’s housing market, there was a notable shift in the government’s approach to housing provision. The national supply of housing, which had peaked at over 90,000 residential units per annum, collapsed to less than 10,000 units annually, and the supply of housing has stalled with economic recovery since 2011 [8]. An analysis of the CSO data in Figure 2 shows that while national output is recovering at 30,000 per annum, housing supplies in Dublin, where demand is highest, remain extremely low. During this period, the state effectively moved away from direct housing provision towards policies that support home ownership and urban regeneration through market-based mechanisms. This shift aligns with what Murphy, Fox-Rogers, and Grist [13] identify as a broader trend towards neoliberal urban governance.

State interventions in the housing sector have taken various forms, including regulatory changes, planning policy adjustments, and targeted initiatives to stimulate housing supply. There has been an increasing emphasis on compact urban growth and higher-density development, particularly in urban centres and along public transport corridors. This policy direction aligns with broader goals of sustainable urban development and efficient land use. However, the effectiveness of state interventions in addressing housing shortages and affordability issues remains a subject of debate. Research suggests that these interventions often prioritize development viability over social outcomes, reflecting a continued emphasis on market-oriented solutions to housing challenges [45]. This approach is evident in initiatives like the SHD scheme, which aimed to accelerate housing delivery through streamlined planning processes.

In addition, the spatial distribution of development across County Dublin’s local authorities reveals distinct patterns influenced by local market conditions and planning policies. DCC areas show the highest concentration of apartment developments, reflecting urban core densification policies, while outer areas like FCC and the South Dublin County Council demonstrate more varied housing typologies. These patterns highlight the complex relationship between planning policies, market demands, and local development conditions.

3.3. The Strategic Housing Development Scheme: Context, Implementation, and Operational Changes

The Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme, introduced by the Irish government in July 2017, represents a significant intervention aimed at expediting large-scale housing delivery amidst an escalating housing crisis. Established under the “Rebuilding Ireland” plan, the SHD scheme reflects a shift in Ireland’s planning system toward a centralized, fast-track approach in response to mounting pressures for increased housing supply and efficiency in the planning process [46]. The SHD was designed to streamline the approval process for large residential developments by permitting developers to bypass local planning authorities and submit applications directly to An Bord Pleanála (ABP), Ireland’s national planning appeals board.

Specifically, there is a marked difference in the planning application administration process, particularly for a large residential development applying for planning permissions through the SHD scheme, as shown in

Table 2. Comparison of the application process for standard planning permissions and the application process for planning permissions under the SHD scheme.

Application Process for Standard Planning Permissions	Application Process for Planning Permissions under the SHD Scheme
Initial application submitted to local authority 8-week standard decision period Public consultation period of 5 weeks Third-party appeal rights to ABP (additional 18 weeks) Total timeline: approximately 48 weeks	Direct application to ABP Mandatory pre-application consultation 16-week statutory decision period Modified public consultation period No appeal mechanism Total timeline: approximately 25 weeks

. In the standard planning process, planning applications for residential developments follow a two-stage process in Ireland’s decentralized planning system (Figure 3). Local planning authorities (LPAs) manage the initial application stages, conducting assessments and public consultations and issuing planning decisions based on local development plans and community needs. Developers or any third-party could appeal local authority decisions to ABP, which would then serve as a secondary review body. This process, while enabling thorough reviews and community participation, was criticized for being slow and cumbersome, contributing to substantial delays in the delivery of much-needed housing units against the backdrop of the housing crisis [47].

However, the planning process under the SHD scheme reoriented such processes by allowing planning applications to bypass local authorities entirely and proceed directly to ABP if the applications demonstrate compliance with specific criteria:

• 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]

This change significantly shortened the decision-making process, setting a maximum processing timeline of 16 weeks from application submission, which contrasts sharply with the traditional system, where the timeline could extend up to 48 weeks or longer, not accounting for pre-consultation or judicial reviews. By centralizing decision-making, the SHD scheme may minimize administrative bottlenecks and reduce the uncertainty associated with lengthy approval procedures, which were frequently identified as barriers to project cash flow and financial planning.

Comparing planning processes before and after the SHD’s implementation reveals substantial changes in regulatory structure and stakeholder involvement. The traditional model emphasized local authority evaluation and community input, ensuring alignment with local development plans. In contrast, the SHD scheme shifted power to ABP, prioritizing efficiency over local participation. This change aimed to accelerate approvals but faced criticism for diminishing democratic participation and community influence.

The expedited planning regulations under the SHD scheme were designed to reinforce Ireland’s ability to meet critical housing targets. The scheme attempted to resolve specific bottlenecks in the planning system through fixed decision timelines and reduced approval stages. However, while the fast-track mechanism proved effective in accelerating approvals, it introduced new challenges, particularly regarding judicial reviews. A significant portion of granted applications faced legal challenges, many resulting in quashed decisions, suggesting that procedural efficiency may have compromised robustness.

While the SHD’s fast-track mechanism proved effective in accelerating approvals—reflected in its high application uptake and an average processing time significantly below that of traditional methods—it also introduced a set of new challenges. One major consequence of the SHD’s centralized approach was the notable rise in judicial reviews, with a significant portion of granted applications being subject to legal challenges, many of which resulted in quashed decisions. This suggests that while the SHD scheme improved efficiency, it potentially compromised procedural robustness, leading to a reliance on judicial intervention as communities and stakeholders sought avenues to address concerns that were sidelined during the expedited approval process. The comparative analysis indicates that, although the SHD effectively addressed developers’ calls for reduced bureaucratic delays, it may have weakened the broader planning framework’s ability to integrate community interests and ensure compliance with local development standards.

The SHD scheme’s impact on the planning process and housing delivery must be understood within Ireland’s broader housing crisis and neoliberal urban policy orientation. By prioritizing efficiency and market responsiveness, the SHD contributed to a significant shift in urban planning’s role—from balancing public interest and regulatory oversight to focusing primarily on meeting market-driven housing targets. This shift underscores the tensions inherent in neoliberal planning policies, where emphasis on speed and deregulation often conflicts with traditional planning goals of inclusivity, sustainability, and public welfare. The scheme’s reliance on centralized decision-making reflects a broader trend in neoliberal urban governance, where planning processes are restructured to support investment-led growth, potentially at the cost of reducing community influence and long-term urban resilience.

The implementation of the SHD scheme provides a compelling illustration of how neoliberal urban planning policies are reshaping governance structures in response to housing pressures. While the scheme’s rapid approval timelines and streamlined procedures succeeded in enhancing planning efficiency, these gains have been counterbalanced by concerns over the quality and sustainability of developments, and by questions surrounding the equitable distribution of housing benefits. In the context of Ireland’s ongoing housing crisis, the SHD’s centralized, fast-track planning mechanism highlights both the opportunities and limitations of adopting neoliberal strategies in urban planning. It demonstrates the potential of market-oriented approaches to achieve short-term gains in housing supply but also reveals their challenges in aligning development processes with broader planning objectives that serve the public good.

4. Methodology

The implementation of the SHD scheme has had significant implications for housing development patterns in Ireland, particularly in urban areas like County Dublin. Previous research indicates that evaluating the effectiveness of urban planning policies requires a multifaceted approach, considering both quantitative and qualitative metrics. Grau and Welch Guerra [48] suggested three key perspectives for assessing urban planning policies: goal achievements, implications for urban sustainability, and social implications. This study employs a structured two-level quantitative analysis to assess both planning approval processes and the progression of approved developments to the commencement stage, providing a comprehensive understanding of the SHD scheme’s effectiveness and its broader implications for housing supply and urban planning.

4.1. Research Design

This research adopts a case study design, focusing on the SHD scheme in County Dublin from its inception in July 2017 to its conclusion in December 2021. A case study approach is particularly suitable given the complex, context-dependent nature of the SHD scheme and the need to capture its specific characteristics, processes, and outcomes. By narrowing the focus to County Dublin, this study ensures an in-depth examination of the scheme’s impacts on housing development while providing insights applicable to other urban areas facing similar challenges.

Figure 1 presents the research framework guiding this study. The framework illustrates how theoretical understanding of neoliberal urban governance and fast-track planning policies intersects with Ireland’s specific policy context to inform our two-level analysis approach. The first level examines planning permission outcomes, focusing on application volumes, approval rates, and judicial reviews. The second level analyses development progress through commencement rates, housing typologies, and spatial distribution patterns. This structured approach enables a comprehensive evaluation of both the procedural effectiveness of the SHD scheme and its broader implications for housing development in Dublin.

4.2. Data Collection

The data collection process involved gathering both primary and secondary data to provide a comprehensive dataset for analysis. Primary data were obtained from official planning application records, including documents and decisions published by An Bord Pleanála (ABP), the national planning appeals board. This research also relied on data from the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office, which provided information on the status of developments that received planning permission, particularly whether they had commenced construction.

The analysis covers eligible planning applications that submitted to the SHD scheme between 3 July 2017 and 31 December 2021 and received planning decisions from ABP by 17 February 2022, capturing the planning outcomes and subsequent developments during the operational span of the scheme because the SHD scheme was initially introduced as a temporary measure until the end of 2019 but was extended to run until the end of 2021. However, it is important to note that while the scheme ended for new applications on 31 December 2021, applications submitted before this date continued to be processed under the SHD scheme even after this date, up until the 17 February 2022 deadline.

To ensure methodological rigor, multiple data sources were used, and cross-referencing was conducted to verify data accuracy. Using official records from ABP and the National Building Control and Market Surveillance Office minimizes bias risk and ensures the findings are based on reliable and comprehensive datasets. Additionally, the quantitative analysis was complemented by qualitative insights from relevant literature to contextualize the findings and explore the broader implications of the SHD scheme on urban planning in Ireland.

4.3. Data Analysis

Following the research framework, the data analysis consisted of a structured two-level quantitative approach to assess the SHD scheme’s impact on housing development in County Dublin. The analysis was conducted in two main parts: (1) evaluating the scheme’s effectiveness in facilitating planning approvals and (2) assessing the implications of approved developments on County Dublin’s housing development.

4.3.1. Level 1: Planning Permission Outcomes and Early Development Stages

The first level focused on assessing the effectiveness of the SHD scheme in streamlining the planning approval process for large-scale residential developments. Key metrics analysed included the following:

• Number of applications submitted;
• Approval rates;
• Processing times;
• Geographical distribution of applications;
• Types of proposed developments.

Furthermore, this study examined the rate of judicial reviews and the quashing of granted applications to evaluate the robustness of planning decisions under the SHD scheme. Judicial reviews represent a significant challenge for the planning process, introducing uncertainty and delays that can impact the effectiveness of fast-track schemes like the SHD. By analysing the proportion of granted applications that were quashed through judicial review, this study provides insights into the challenges associated with balancing expedited planning with procedural fairness and compliance with existing planning regulations. (In the context of Ireland’s planning system, “quashed” refers to the legal action where a court, typically following a judicial review, invalidates or nullifies a planning decision that has been previously made. This occurs when the court finds that there were legal flaws in the process of granting the permission, such as failure to follow correct procedures, a lack of proper public consultation, or violations of statutory planning regulations.).

4.3.2. Level 2: Development Progress: Commencement vs. Non-Commencement

The second level focused on assessing the implications of the SHD scheme on County Dublin’s housing market by analysing the development progress of granted planning permissions. This included a comparative analysis of commenced versus un-commenced granted-not-quashed SHD developments, examining the following:

• 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.

This allowed the research to identify any barriers to the realization of approved developments and enabled a detailed exploration of the challenges associated with translating planning approvals into actual housing units on the ground, particularly in the context of a market-driven planning environment.

This two-level analysis framework allows for a comprehensive evaluation of both the immediate procedural impacts of the SHD scheme and its broader effects on housing delivery and urban development patterns. By examining both planning outcomes and development progress, this study provides insights into the relationship between fast-track planning policies and actual housing delivery.

The methodology’s structured approach enables systematic assessment of the SHD scheme’s effectiveness in achieving its stated objectives while also examining its broader implications for housing development and urban planning in Dublin. This comprehensive evaluation framework helps identify both the successes and limitations of the scheme, contributing to broader discussions about the role of fast-track planning in addressing housing challenges.

5. Results

5.1. Effectiveness of the SHD Scheme: Planning Permission Outcomes and Early Development Stages

The Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme demonstrated significant activity in County Dublin between July 2017 and December 2021. During this period, 218 SHD applications were submitted and received planning decisions from An Bord Pleanála (ABP) by 17 February 2022. The volume of these applications reflects a strong uptake of the scheme by developers, which suggests that it effectively provided an attractive route for expediting the planning process for large-scale housing developments.

5.1.1. Geographical Distribution of Applications and Types of SHD Applications

The spatial distribution of applications across County Dublin’s four local authorities reveals distinct patterns in large-scale residential development activity (Figure 4). The Dublin City Council (DCC) received the highest number of applications, accounting for 38.1% (83) of the total. This concentration in the city centre highlights the high demand for housing in urban locations and the availability of suitable development sites, often associated with the regeneration of underutilized areas. The Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council (DLRCC) followed, with 31.2% (68) of the applications, while the Fingal County Council (FCC) and the South Dublin County Council (SDCC) received 14.7% (32) and 16.1% (35) of the applications, respectively. This pattern suggests that the SHD scheme was particularly attractive for development in more densely populated areas and those with higher land values, with a noticeable focus on central urban zones.

An analysis of application types reveals the diverse nature of large-scale residential proposals under the SHD scheme (Figure 5). Standard residential developments, including a mix of housing types, represented the majority of total applications, at 67.0% (146). This indicates that developers primarily utilized the SHD scheme for traditional build-to-sell residential developments. Build-to-rent (BTR) applications accounted for 17.9% (39) of the total, reflecting the growing trend towards purpose-built rental accommodation. Student accommodation applications constituted 7.8% (17) of the total, indicating a significant focus on addressing student housing needs near Dublin’s universities. Co-living applications, a new concept in Ireland, represented 6.0% (13) of all applications, while combined BTR and standard developments made up the remaining 1.4% (3).

5.1.2. Approval Rates and Processing Times

The overall approval rate for SHD applications in County Dublin was notably high, at 80.3% (175 applications), suggesting effective facilitation of large-scale residential developments through the planning process (Figure 6). In contrast, 17.4% (38) of applications were refused, and 2.3% (5) were either withdrawn or deemed invalid.

Approval rates varied by application type, revealing interesting patterns in the scheme’s implementation (

Table 3. Approval rates and processing times of SHD applications submitted to An Bord Pleanála in County Dublin, by development type and local authority, 2017–2021.

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%

Data source: authors’ own research.

). Standard residential developments achieved a 79.5% approval rate (116 out of 146), while BTR applications showed a slightly higher rate, at 82.1% (32 out of 39). Student accommodation applications demonstrated the highest success rate, at 94.1% (16 out of 17), indicating strong support for addressing student housing needs. However, co-living applications had a significantly lower approval rate of 61.5% (8 out of 13), potentially reflecting the controversial nature of this housing concept in the Irish context.

Processing times indicated successful achievement of the scheme’s efficiency objectives. The average processing time of 15.6 weeks for all SHD applications in County Dublin represented a significant reduction compared to traditional planning timelines. This represents a significant reduction compared to the traditional planning system, which often took several months or even years to reach decisions on large-scale developments. Among the diverse types of applications, there were minor variations in processing times. BTR applications had an average processing time of 16.3 weeks, slightly above the overall average. Standard residential developments were processed within an average of 16 weeks, while student accommodation applications averaged 15.6 weeks. Co-living applications had the shortest average processing time of 14.4 weeks, possibly due to their smaller scale compared to other SHD developments.

5.1.3. Judicial Reviews and Quashing of Permissions

The rate at which granted applications faced judicial reviews provides critical insights into the robustness of the SHD scheme’s decision-making processes (Figure 7). Of the 175 granted applications, 31 (17.7%) were quashed through judicial review, indicating that a substantial proportion of planning decisions faced successful legal challenges. This high rate of quashed decisions suggests potential procedural vulnerabilities in the streamlined approval process.

An analysis of judicial review outcomes across development types reveals varying levels of legal scrutiny (

Table 4. Judicial reviews and quashing of permissions in County Dublin, by development type, 2017–2021.

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%

Data source: authors’ own research.

). Standard residential developments experienced a quashing rate of 18.1% (21 out of 116), slightly above the overall average. BTR developments showed more resilience to legal challenges, with a lower quashing rate of 15.6% (5 out of 32), while student accommodation applications demonstrated relative stability, with a 12.5% quashing rate (2 out of 16). Notably, co-living developments faced the highest level of legal scrutiny, with a quashing rate of 37.5% (3 out of 8), reflecting heightened controversy and procedural challenges associated with this novel housing format.

Additionally, the average time between the original decision date and the annulment for quashed applications was approximately 81.97 weeks (about 19 months). This extended time lag between initial approval and annulment introduced significant uncertainty into the development process, impacting the effectiveness of the SHD scheme in swiftly delivering housing units.

5.1.4. Summary of Early Development Indicators

The analysis of early development indicators reveals both successes and challenges in the SHD scheme’s implementation. The high volume of applications (218) and overall approval rate (80.3%) demonstrate the scheme’s effectiveness in attracting development proposals and facilitating planning permissions. The average processing time of 15.6 weeks represents a significant improvement over traditional planning timelines, indicating successful achievement of the scheme’s efficiency objectives.

However, these procedural gains were partially offset by substantial challenges in three key areas. First, the high rate of successful judicial reviews (17.7% of granted permissions) suggests that expedited processing may have compromised the robustness of planning decisions. The extended timeframes for legal proceedings (averaging 82 weeks) effectively undermined the scheme’s efficiency goals for affected developments. Second, the varying success rates across development types indicate that the scheme’s effectiveness was not uniform. While student accommodation (94.1% approval) and BTR developments (82.1% approval) showed strong performance, the lower approval rates for co-living proposals (61.5%) suggest challenges in facilitating novel housing formats. Third, the geographical concentration of applications in DCC and DLRCC areas (69.3% combined) indicates potential limitations in the scheme’s ability to promote balanced spatial development across County Dublin. The higher rates of judicial review in urban core areas also suggest particular challenges in facilitating development in high-density locations.

These findings underscore the complex relationship between procedural efficiency and planning quality. While the SHD scheme successfully accelerated the initial planning process, the high rate of successful legal challenges raises questions about the sustainability of this expedited approach. The patterns in approval rates and judicial reviews also highlight the importance of considering development type and location in fast-track planning initiatives.

5.2. Effectiveness of the SHD Scheme: Implications on County Dublin’s Housing Development

The granted-not-quashed SHD developments (developments for which planning permission has been granted through the SHD scheme and for which the planning permission has not been revoked by juridical review by the end of October 2024) in County Dublin provide a useful basis for assessing both the potential and the actual impacts of the scheme on housing development. This analysis focuses on understanding how these developments performed in terms of commencement rates, time taken to commence, housing types, geographical distribution, and housing capacity between commenced and un-commenced developments. By comparing these factors, we can gain insights into the realization of planning permissions under the SHD scheme and their impact on housing delivery.

5.2.1. Commencement Rates and Average Time to Commencement by Development Types

An analysis of the granted-not-quashed Strategic Housing Development cases reveals complex patterns in commencement rates across different development types, influenced by multiple market and operational factors. Of the 144 granted-but-not-quashed SHD developments, 86 developments (59.7%) commenced construction by 1 September 2024, while 59 developments (40.3%) remained un-commenced (Figure 8). This commencement rate reflects the interplay of several key factors: market conditions, development financing, construction capacity, and timing of approvals relative to market cycles.

From Figure 9, it can be found that student accommodation-related developments achieved the highest commencement rate, at 85.7%, attributed to several factors: strong institutional investor interest, predictable demand patterns aligned with academic cycles, and typically smaller project scales requiring less complex financing arrangements. BTR developments followed with a 63.0% commencement rate, reflecting growing market confidence in the rental sector and increasing institutional investment in this asset class. The relatively high commencement rate for BTR projects also suggests that developments with clear target markets and established funding models were more likely to progress to construction.

Standard residential developments showed a moderate commencement rate of 57.9%, influenced by broader market dynamics including house price trends, construction costs, and developer funding constraints. The lower commencement rate compared to student accommodation and BTR developments suggests that traditional residential developments face more complex market risks and financing challenges. This pattern aligns with the observation that smaller projects generally showed higher commencement rates, likely due to lower capital requirements and simpler execution logistics.

Co-living developments demonstrated the lowest commencement rate, at 20.0%, with only one development proceeding to construction. This poor performance can be attributed to several factors: regulatory uncertainty surrounding the co-living model, changing market perceptions post-COVID-19, and challenges in securing funding for an untested housing format in the Irish market. The timing of these applications, coinciding with growing public scepticism about co-living schemes, likely contributed to investor hesitation.

Geographical variations in commencement rates reveal important patterns influenced by local market conditions and infrastructure readiness (

Table 5. Commencement status and commencement rate of granted-not-quashed SHD applications in County Dublin, by local authority, 2017–2021.

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

Data source: authors’ own research.

). DLRCC’s higher commencement rate (56.3%) and shorter average time to commencement (63.1 weeks) reflect the area’s strong market fundamentals and established development patterns. DCC’s similar performance (58.9% commencement rate and 62.1 weeks to commencement) indicates comparable market strength in the city centre, despite higher land costs and more complex development conditions.

FCC and SDCC demonstrated higher overall commencement rates (66.7% and 63.6%, respectively) but required longer periods to commence construction (72.1 and 74.3 weeks). This pattern suggests different market dynamics in these areas, likely reflecting a combination of lower land costs but greater infrastructure requirements, different phasing strategies by developers, and varying levels of market absorption rates in these less central locations. The extended timelines may also indicate more complex site preparation requirements or additional time needed to secure development financing in these areas.

The interaction between development type and location revealed additional patterns affecting commencement likelihood. In DCC, standard developments achieved a higher commencement rate (77.8%) compared to student accommodation-related developments (62.5%), possibly reflecting stronger market demand for conventional housing in central locations. Conversely, in DLRCC, student accommodation-related developments commenced at a higher rate (60.0%) than standard developments (58.3%), suggesting varying levels of market readiness and developer confidence across different housing formats in different areas.

These geographical variations in commencement rates and timelines highlight the importance of local market conditions in determining development outcomes. The data suggest that while the SHD scheme successfully streamlined the planning process, local factors including infrastructure availability, market demand, and development costs continued to play crucial roles in determining whether and when approved developments proceeded to construction.

5.2.2. Commenced vs. Un-Commenced Developments: Residential Units

The analysis of commenced versus un-commenced developments reveals significant patterns in both the scale and composition of housing delivery under the SHD scheme (

Table 6. Comparison of residential units in private dwellings in commenced vs. un-commenced granted-not-quashed SHD applications in County Dublin, by local authority, 2017–2021.

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

Data source: authors’ own research.

). Of the 41,665 housing units approved in granted-but-not-quashed SHD developments, commenced developments account for 23,696 units (56.9%), while un-commenced projects comprise 17,969 units (43.1%). This disparity between the proportion of commenced projects (59.7%) and commenced units (56.9%) indicates that slightly smaller developments were more likely to progress to construction, possibly due to lower capital requirements and simpler execution logistics.

The geographical distribution of housing units reflects distinct patterns of development activity and market dynamics across County Dublin. DCC leads in both commenced and un-commenced units, with 8037 units under construction (33.9% of all commenced units) and 7435 units yet to commence (41.4% of un-commenced units). This concentration in the city centre reflects strong market demand for urban living and the availability of development sites, despite higher land costs and more complex development conditions.

DLRCC shows robust development activity, with 6508 units commenced (27.5% of commenced units) and 4483 units un-commenced (24.9% of un-commenced units), indicating steady market confidence in this area. The lower numbers in FCC (3283 commenced units) and SDCC (5868 commenced units) reflect the ongoing challenges of attracting development to less centralized locations, despite potentially lower development costs.

The housing typology analysis reveals a strong preference for apartment development across both commenced and un-commenced projects. In commenced developments, apartments constitute 20,820 units (87.9%), while houses account for 2876 units (12.1%). Un-commenced developments show an even stronger apartment focus, with 17,189 apartment units (95.7%) and only 780 house units (4.3%). This consistency in the apartment-to-house ratio across both categories suggests that housing type is not a primary determinant of commencement likelihood, but rather reflects broader urban densification policies and market preferences.

The unit size distribution shows subtle but important variations between commenced and un-commenced developments (

Table 7. Breakdown of apartments included in commenced SHD applications in County Dublin, by local authority, 2017–2021.

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

Data source: authors’ own research.

). Commenced developments feature 4.8% studios, 34.8% one-bedroom, 53.2% two-bedroom, and 7.2% three-bedroom units. Un-commenced developments show a slight shift toward smaller units: 6.6% studios, 37.6% one-bedroom, 48.8% two-bedroom, and 7.0% three-bedroom units. This trend toward smaller units in un-commenced projects may reflect changing market dynamics and developer responses to affordability constraints in the housing market.

These patterns suggest that while the SHD scheme successfully facilitated planning permissions for a significant volume of housing units, the transition to construction has been influenced by factors beyond the planning process. The higher commencement rates for smaller developments and the geographical concentration of activity in certain areas indicate that market conditions, development scale, and location play crucial roles in determining project viability. The predominance of apartments and trend toward smaller unit sizes also reflects broader shifts in housing market dynamics and development strategies.

5.2.3. Commenced vs. Un-Commenced Developments: Residential Capacity

The residential capacity analysis provided by the SHD scheme demonstrates its overall potential versus actual impacts in terms of both units and bedspaces. In total, 96,478 bedspaces were approved across all 144 granted-but-not-quashed SHD applications, including student and co-living bedspaces. Of these, 49,581 bedspaces (51.4%) were associated with the 85 commenced developments, comprising 66 standard developments, 9 BTR developments, 1 BTR and standard development, 1 co-living-related development, and 8 student accommodation developments.

The total number of bedspaces in commenced developments was 49,581: apartments contribute the largest share (35,825 bedspaces, 72.3%, from 21,476 units), followed by houses (7612 bedspaces, 15.4%, from 2876 units), while student bedspaces and co-living bedspaces account for 5747 (11.2%) and 397 (1.1%), respectively. Comparatively, the 59 un-commenced developments accounted for 46,897 bedspaces, indicating a sizeable portion of residential capacity yet to be realized.

• Student Accommodation and Shared Living-Related Developments

The implementation of the SHD scheme has had notably different impacts on specialized housing formats, particularly student accommodation and shared living developments, reflecting distinct market dynamics and investor preferences. An analysis of these specialized housing types reveals important patterns in both development progress and geographical distribution, influenced by factors including market demand, funding availability, and proximity to key amenities.

Student accommodations have emerged as the most successful category under the SHD scheme, with 8 of 14 granted-but-not-quashed projects (57.1%) proceeding to construction. These commenced developments will deliver 5747 bedspaces, representing 67.0% of the total 8575 approved student bedspaces. The high commencement rate and substantial bedspace delivery reflect several favourable factors: strong institutional investor interest, predictable demand patterns aligning with academic calendars, and typically lower development complexity compared to traditional residential projects. The concentration of these developments within the DCC and DLRCC jurisdictions demonstrates the importance of proximity to educational institutions in driving development viability.

In contrast, co-living developments have shown significantly lower implementation success, with only one of five granted-but-not-quashed developments commencing construction. This single commenced project will provide 397 bedspaces, representing just 24.0% of the 1653 approved co-living bedspaces. The poor performance of co-living developments can be attributed to multiple factors: regulatory uncertainty surrounding the housing format, shifting market sentiment following the COVID-19 pandemic, and challenges in securing funding for an untested concept in the Irish market. The low commencement rate suggests that despite initial developer interest, the co-living model faced significant barriers to implementation in the Dublin market.

The combined analysis of specialized housing formats reveals 6144 bedspaces (55.2%) in commenced projects versus 4084 bedspaces in un-commenced projects, indicating a lower overall commencement rate compared to traditional residential units (58.7%). This disparity suggests that while specialized housing formats can contribute significantly to housing supply, they face unique challenges in progressing from planning approval to construction.

The geographical concentration of these developments in DCC and DLRCC, with no specialized housing developments in FCC or SDCC, highlights the importance of location in determining project viability. This pattern reflects not only proximity to educational institutions but also access to urban amenities and public transport, factors particularly crucial for specialized housing formats targeting specific demographic groups.

b.

BTR and Standard Developments

The analysis of build-to-rent (BTR) and standard developments reveals distinct patterns in development progress and housing composition, reflecting different market dynamics and investor preferences. Among the commenced developments, 9 BTR, and 1 BTR and standard developments provide 3458 apartment units, representing 14.2% of total commenced units. The relatively modest scale of commenced BTR developments (compared to 20 un-commenced BTR projects with 6954 units) suggests that while the BTR sector attracts significant planning applications, the transition to construction faces challenges, including funding requirements and market absorption concerns.

Standard developments demonstrate more diverse housing typology and higher commencement rates. The 66 commenced standard developments deliver 20,894 units, comprising 18,018 apartments (86.2%) and 2876 houses. In contrast, the 29 un-commenced standard developments include 17,189 apartments (95.7%) and 780 houses, totalling 17,969 units. This variation in housing mix between commenced and un-commenced projects suggests that developments offering a broader range of housing types may have greater market resilience and funding accessibility.

The bedspace analysis provides further insights into development patterns and target markets. Commenced BTR developments offer 4974 bedspaces (averaging 1.44 bedspaces per unit), while un-commenced BTR projects would provide 10,721 bedspaces (1.54 per unit). This difference in bedroom density reflects varying approaches to unit mix and target demographics. Standard developments show higher bedroom densities, with commenced projects providing 38,463 bedspaces (1.84 per unit) and un-commenced projects accounting for 30,655 bedspaces (1.70 per unit), indicating a greater focus on family-oriented housing.

Unit size distribution reveals distinct market positioning strategies. Commenced BTR developments favour smaller units: 11.6% studios, 46.9% one-bedroom, 39.3% two-bedroom, and 2.3% three-bedroom units. This concentration on smaller units reflects BTR operators’ focus on young professionals and smaller households. Standard developments show a more balanced distribution in commenced projects—3.3% studios, 33.2% one-bedroom, 55.8% two-bedroom, and 7.7% three-bedroom units—suggesting broader market appeal.

The analysis of apartment bedspaces further underscores these patterns. In commenced developments, two-bedroom apartments contribute the largest share, with 22,822 bedspaces (63.7% of apartment bedspaces), followed by one-bedroom units, with 7604 bedspaces (21.2%). This predominance of two-bedroom units reflects market demand for flexible living spaces suitable for both single occupants and small households, while also offering better rental yield potential for developers.

5.2.4. Commenced vs. Un-Commenced Developments: Spatial Distribution and Local Authority-Level Analysis

The spatial distribution of SHD developments across County Dublin’s local authorities reveals distinct patterns of development progress and market dynamics. DCC leads development activity, with 32 commenced projects (37.6% of all commenced developments) delivering 8037 residential units and 397 shared bedspaces. The high concentration in DCC reflects a strong urban core demand, despite higher development costs and complex site conditions. However, DCC also shows significant potential capacity in 24 un-commenced projects (40.7% of un-commenced developments), comprising 13,355 units, 645 shared bedspaces, and 1846 student bedspaces, indicating ongoing market absorption challenges in the city centre.

DLRCC demonstrates strong development momentum, with 27 commenced projects (31.8%) delivering 6324 units and 4280 student bedspaces. The area’s 21 un-commenced projects (35.6%) would provide 5724 units, 208 shared bedspaces, and 982 student bedspaces. DLRCC’s balanced progression of developments suggests stable market conditions and effective planning implementation in this predominantly affluent area.

SDCC shows moderate activity, with 14 commenced projects (16.5%) delivering 6708 units, while 8 un-commenced projects (13.5%) would provide 2634 units. The higher unit count in commenced versus un-commenced projects suggests that larger developments in SDCC have been more successful in progressing to construction, possibly due to economies of scale in these suburban locations.

FCC demonstrates the lowest development activity but high unit yields, with 12 commenced projects (14.1%) delivering 3283 units and 6 un-commenced projects (10.2%) comprising 4166 units. This pattern suggests that while fewer developments are occurring in FCC, they tend to be larger in scale, reflecting the availability of larger development sites in this area.

Housing typology varies significantly across authorities, reflecting local market conditions and planning policies. DCC shows the strongest apartment focus, with apartments comprising 99.6% of commenced units and 99.9% of un-commenced units, reflecting urban core densification policies. DLRCC maintains a high apartment ratio (85.6% in commenced, 96.9% in un-commenced projects) while accommodating some housing development. FCC and SDCC demonstrate more balanced housing mixes, with FCC including 12.2% houses in commenced developments and SDCC showing the highest house proportion at 22.9% in commenced projects.

5.2.5. Summary of Implications for Housing Market: Development Progress Trends and Challenges

The analysis of granted-not-quashed SHD developments reveals significant implications not only for Dublin’s immediate housing supply but also for long-term strategic planning and market development. The overall commencement rate of 59.7% (86 out of 144 developments), coupled with an average time to commencement of 65.8 weeks, indicates substantial friction in translating planning permissions into actual housing delivery. These implementation challenges, combined with concerns about democratic accountability and community engagement, contributed to the government’s decision to terminate the SHD scheme. The scheme’s conclusion in December 2021 and subsequent replacement with the Large-scale Residential Development (LRD) process marked an official acknowledgment that fast-track planning alone could not address the complexities of housing delivery without compromising planning quality and local participation.

The varying success rates across development types offer crucial insights for future planning policy. Student accommodation’s high commencement rate (85.7%) demonstrates the effectiveness of purpose-built developments targeting specific market segments with clear demand profiles. This success suggests that future planning strategies might benefit from encouraging more specialized housing formats that align closely with identifiable market needs and attract institutional investment. The strong performance of student housing also indicates the potential for similar success in other purpose-built sectors, such as senior living or key worker accommodation, which could diversify housing delivery channels.

Build-to-rent developments’ moderate success (63.0% commencement rate) reflects the emerging institutionalization of Ireland’s rental sector. This trend has important implications for long-term housing strategy, suggesting a gradual shift from traditional build-to-sell models toward professional rental provision. However, the substantial volume of un-commenced BTR permissions (6954 units) raises questions about market absorption capacity and the need for phased delivery strategies in future planning policies.

The limited success of co-living developments (20.0% commencement rate) serves as a cautionary tale for planning policy, highlighting the risks of promoting novel housing formats without sufficient market testing or stakeholder acceptance. This experience suggests future planning strategies should carefully evaluate new housing concepts’ viability and social acceptance before incorporating them into mainstream policy.

The geographical patterns in commencement rates reveal important considerations for spatial planning strategies. The concentration of successful developments in DCC and DLRCC (69.4% of commenced projects) suggests that future planning policies might need to more actively incentivize development in outer areas through infrastructure provision and other enabling measures. The longer commencement times in FCC (72.1 weeks) and SDCC (74.3 weeks) indicate that strategic planning needs to better account for local market conditions and development constraints.

The predominance of apartments (87.9% of commenced units) versus houses (12.1%) indicates a structural shift in Dublin’s housing market toward higher-density living. This trend has significant implications for long-term infrastructure planning, community facilities provision, and social service delivery. However, the limited delivery of larger units and family homes suggests a need for more balanced housing strategies that can accommodate diverse household types and life-cycle needs.

The official statement on the closure of the SHD initiative acknowledged both its procedural achievements and limitations. While the scheme successfully reduced planning decision timelines, the high rate of judicial reviews and relatively low commencement rates indicated that expedited processes alone were insufficient to address housing supply challenges. The transition to the LRD system represents a policy shift toward rebalancing efficiency with local democratic oversight, requiring enhanced pre-application consultation and restored decision-making roles for local authorities while maintaining statutory timelines for decisions.

These patterns collectively suggest that future planning strategies should adopt a more nuanced approach to housing delivery, considering market absorption capacity, infrastructure sequencing, diversification of housing formats, and geographical balance in development promotion. The high volume of un-commenced permissions (17,969 units) represents both an opportunity and a challenge for future planning strategy, suggesting that planning frameworks should evolve beyond permission facilitation to more actively support development implementation through coordinated infrastructure delivery, funding mechanisms, and market enabling measures. The termination of the SHD scheme and transition to the LRD process demonstrates a recognition that effective housing delivery requires not just streamlined planning but also robust mechanisms for ensuring development viability, community integration, and sustainable urban growth.

6. Discussion and Conclusions

6.1. Evaluation of the SHD Scheme’s Effectiveness

This study’s evaluation of the Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme highlights both the benefits and limitations of using expedited planning mechanisms to address Ireland’s housing crisis. The SHD’s centralization of decision-making within An Bord Pleanála (ABP) and its streamlined approval process for large-scale developments succeeded in reducing application timelines, providing developers with a more predictable path to planning permission. The average processing time of 15.6 weeks for SHD applications was significantly shorter than traditional routes, achieving the scheme’s core objective of accelerating approvals to meet growing housing demand. This procedural efficiency was particularly effective in reducing bureaucratic barriers, which had previously slowed the rate of planning approvals and were frequently criticized by developers and investors as contributing to housing undersupply [47].

However, the findings suggest that while the SHD improved the speed of planning decisions, it did not ensure equivalent gains in housing construction or affordability. A notable proportion of approved developments under the SHD scheme remained un-commenced (40.3%), highlighting a gap between planning permissions granted and actual housing delivery. This discrepancy indicates that fast-track planning alone is insufficient to overcome market dynamics, financing challenges, and other factors influencing developers’ ability to commence construction. The varying commencement rates across development types—from 85.7% for student accommodation to just 20.0% for co-living developments—suggest that market viability and development complexity play crucial roles beyond planning efficiency. Further complicating this picture is the emergence of a pattern where sites with SHD permissions are being sold onward or subject to subsequent planning applications, often with modified proposals (by the end of 2023, more than 15 developments in County Dublin have applied for alternations with previous permission through the SHD scheme after having been granted planning permission through that scheme). This trend of “planning trading”—where developers secure fast-track permission only to sell sites or seek alternative permissions—suggests that some SHD applications may have been pursued to enhance land values rather than for immediate development purposes. An analysis of subsequent planning applications on SHD sites reveals cases where developers sought to modify previously approved schemes, often adjusting unit mix, density, or development type to respond to changing market conditions or to enhance scheme viability. This pattern raises questions about whether the fast-track system inadvertently facilitated speculative behaviour rather than addressing immediate housing supply needs.

The SHD scheme’s limited emphasis on public engagement also contributed to significant challenges in its implementation. By reducing the role of local authorities and curtailing public consultation periods, the scheme prioritized efficiency over democratic accountability. This reduction in community participation led to increased opposition, often manifesting in judicial reviews, with 17.7% of SHD-approved developments facing successful legal challenges and quashed decisions. These reviews point to tensions between the SHD’s rapid approval framework, and the procedural safeguards typically embedded within traditional planning processes. While the SHD addressed developers’ calls for faster, more predictable planning, the high rate of legal challenges suggests that bypassing local consultation may undermine both public trust and the scheme’s long-term effectiveness.

The analysis of development patterns reveals additional complexities in the scheme’s outcomes. The concentration of applications in DCC (38.1%) and DLRCC (31.2%) areas suggests that while the SHD successfully attracted development proposals in high-demand locations, it may have been less effective in promoting balanced spatial development across County Dublin. The predominance of apartments (87.9% of commenced units) indicates that while the scheme facilitated higher-density development aligned with compact growth objectives, it may not have adequately addressed the need for diverse housing types to meet varied household needs.

These findings underscore the complex relationship between planning efficiency and development outcomes. While the SHD scheme demonstrated that streamlined planning procedures can effectively reduce approval timelines, the challenges in converting permissions to construction suggest that comprehensive housing delivery strategies must address factors beyond planning efficiency. The experience of the SHD scheme thus provides valuable lessons for future planning initiatives, highlighting the importance of balancing procedural speed with robust decision-making processes and meaningful community engagement.

6.2. Policy Recommendations for Planning Reform and Implications for Future Planning Policy

The SHD scheme’s outcomes suggest that while expedited planning can address procedural delays, it requires a balanced policy framework that incorporates both efficiency and community engagement to achieve sustainable housing goals. A primary recommendation emerging from this study is the reintegration of local authority involvement in large-scale planning processes, establishing a collaborative model that allows both central and local planning entities to contribute to decision-making. This approach would enable local authorities to provide context-specific insights into housing needs and infrastructure capacity, ensuring that approved projects align with the characteristics and resources of individual communities. Such collaboration could strengthen the responsiveness of planning policies to local demands while preserving the SHD’s efficiency benefits.

To address the gap in affordable housing supply observed under the SHD, future planning frameworks should embed affordability as a core criterion in the approval process. Incentivizing developers to include affordable units within fast-tracked projects could make significant strides toward housing inclusivity. This could be achieved through mechanisms such as density bonuses or tax incentives for projects that incorporate a proportion of affordable housing units, encouraging developers to balance profit objectives with social responsibility. By aligning planning approvals with affordability criteria, future frameworks could better address Ireland’s pressing need for diverse housing options accessible to a wider range of income groups.

Further policy refinement should focus on integrating infrastructural requirements with housing approvals to support sustainable growth. The rapid approval process under the SHD occasionally resulted in developments that outpaced the availability of essential infrastructure, such as transportation, healthcare, and education facilities. Future planning frameworks could mitigate this issue by requiring developers to present infrastructure impact assessments or by coordinating approvals with phased infrastructure projects. Ensuring that infrastructure and housing developments progress in tandem would not only enhance the quality of life in new communities but also reduce potential strain on existing services.

The lessons from the SHD scheme also underscore the importance of a structured approach to community engagement within expedited planning models. Future policies could include tailored public consultation processes that are both streamlined and effective, allowing communities to contribute constructively without causing undue delays. Online platforms and digital tools could facilitate these consultations, broadening accessibility and providing avenues for community input on project details, especially regarding design, density, and infrastructure needs. This would help cultivate a planning environment that respects local voices and fosters transparency, potentially reducing the frequency of legal challenges by building public trust in the decision-making process.

The geographical disparities in development progress under the SHD scheme suggest the need for more nuanced spatial planning strategies. Future policies should consider introducing location-specific incentives or requirements that respond to local market conditions and development constraints. This could include varying approval criteria or development requirements based on area-specific needs, while maintaining consistent overall standards for housing quality and sustainability. Such an approach would help promote more balanced spatial development while acknowledging the diverse challenges faced in different parts of Dublin.

These policy recommendations suggest a balanced approach that integrates the strengths of the SHD scheme with measures to enhance affordability, infrastructure readiness, and public engagement. Such a model would provide a more comprehensive framework for future planning policy, one that addresses not only the speed of approvals but also the broader goals of social equity, sustainability, and community cohesion.

6.3. Addressing International Practice and Academic Debates

The SHD scheme reflects a broader global trend towards fast-track planning mechanisms adopted to respond to housing shortages and urban growth pressures, aligning Ireland’s planning reforms with international practices seen in countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. Similar to Ireland’s approach, the UK’s NSIPs and Australia’s State Significant Development frameworks have centralized approval processes, expediting large-scale developments to stimulate housing supply and economic growth. These frameworks mirror the SHD in their emphasis on procedural efficiency and streamlined decision-making, often at the expense of traditional local authority oversight and extended public consultation periods [18,19]. The international success of these models in delivering housing more quickly has reinforced the argument for centralized, fast-track approaches in planning, yet it has also highlighted challenges in maintaining democratic accountability and community engagement.

Critiques of these fast-track schemes often emphasize the trade-off between planning efficiency and the inclusivity of local governance. Neoliberal urban governance literature suggests that such expedited mechanisms may inadvertently privilege economic and market-driven objectives over social welfare, potentially leading to uneven urban development outcomes [11,20]. In Ireland, the SHD scheme’s emphasis on market responsiveness aligns with these neoliberal governance principles, where planning is reoriented toward stimulating private sector-led development rather than prioritizing affordable housing and community engagement. Scholars argue that while fast-track schemes can be effective in addressing immediate supply issues, they may fail to achieve long-term urban resilience if they marginalize local input and neglect social objectives like housing affordability and inclusivity [34,37].

This study’s findings resonate with these critiques, as the SHD’s outcomes suggest a need for recalibrating fast-track frameworks to incorporate social and infrastructural considerations alongside procedural efficiency. By examining the SHD in relation to these international models, this study contributes to the academic debate on neoliberal planning by highlighting the potential drawbacks of prioritizing speed and market responsiveness over community-centred planning. The high rate of judicial reviews and public opposition to SHD-approved projects underscores the risks associated with bypassing local authorities and minimizing public consultation, suggesting that Ireland’s planning system could benefit from adopting more adaptive and inclusive models seen in other jurisdictions.

The academic discourse around neoliberal urban governance and fast-track planning highlights the importance of integrating efficiency with broader social goals. While expedited schemes like the SHD offer valuable lessons in addressing housing supply issues, this study adds to the debate by underscoring the need for a hybrid model that incorporates local engagement, sustainable infrastructure, and affordability criteria to achieve balanced urban growth. This perspective aligns with recent scholarship advocating for planning policies that are not only responsive to market needs but also resilient to socio-economic shifts and sensitive to the complexities of urban diversity and inclusiveness [32,42].

In situating the SHD within these international practices and academic debates, this section reveals both the advantages and limitations of adopting a market-oriented, fast-track approach. This study’s findings suggest that while the SHD scheme has contributed to an increase in housing approvals, its broader impact on urban sustainability and community cohesion remains uncertain, echoing challenges faced by similar frameworks globally. This analysis thus offers insights for policymakers in Ireland and beyond, emphasizing the importance of designing planning frameworks that integrate efficiency with socio-economic and environmental considerations to promote resilient urban futures.

6.4. Conclusions

This study examined the Strategic Housing Development (SHD) scheme’s effectiveness in expediting housing delivery in County Dublin and explored its broader implications for Ireland’s urban planning policy. Through a detailed analysis of planning outcomes and procedural efficiencies, the findings highlight both the benefits and limitations of adopting a centralized, fast-track approach within a neoliberal governance framework. The SHD scheme successfully accelerated planning approvals, providing a model for addressing immediate housing shortages by removing bureaucratic barriers that often hinder large-scale residential projects. However, the outcomes also reveal critical gaps in affordability, housing diversity, and community engagement, suggesting that fast-track planning mechanisms alone may not fully address the complex demands of sustainable urban growth.

These findings point to the importance of integrating efficiency-focused approaches like the SHD with planning policies that prioritize social equity and infrastructural readiness. A balanced framework that includes local authority input, affordable housing incentives, and robust public consultation could improve alignment between housing development goals and community needs, fostering a more resilient and inclusive urban environment. The SHD’s reliance on centralized decision-making underscores the risks of sidelining democratic processes in the pursuit of efficiency, as evidenced by the high rate of judicial challenges and community opposition that often-accompanied SHD-approved projects.

In comparing Ireland’s experience with international fast-track models, this study contributes to ongoing academic debates on neoliberal urban governance. The SHD scheme exemplifies both the opportunities and tensions inherent in market-oriented planning approaches, reinforcing arguments that while expedited schemes could address administrative obstacles, they risk overlooking the longer-term objectives of affordability, inclusivity, and sustainability. This analysis provides policymakers with critical insights into how planning frameworks can evolve to balance procedural efficiency with socio-economic and environmental considerations, ensuring that urban development not only meets market demands but also serves broader societal interests.

The limitations of this study, including its focus on County Dublin and the SHD scheme’s limited operational period, highlight the need for further research on the long-term impacts of fast-track planning policies in diverse urban contexts. Future studies could expand the scope to examine similar schemes in other regions or countries, providing a comparative perspective on the effectiveness of fast-track frameworks in achieving sustainable and equitable housing outcomes.

In conclusion, the SHD scheme offers valuable lessons on the potential and limitations of neoliberal planning models in addressing housing crises. While procedural efficiency is a vital component of contemporary urban governance, this study underscores the need for policy frameworks that balance market responsiveness with inclusive, community-centred planning to support long-term urban resilience and equity. By synthesizing these findings within a broader international and academic context, this study advocates for a more integrated approach to planning that aligns housing delivery goals with the social and environmental needs of urban communities.