Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
HOUSING MINISTER DARRAGH O’Brien has agreed to issue a de facto ban on new co-living developments in the country, citing concerns at the growing number of developments in the housing system.
O’Brien said this was the correct decision given the number of applications and permissions to date are “comparatively high in the international context”.
The decision to amend the 2018 Planning Guidelines to seek to restrict all future commercial co-living development in Ireland was made on the back of a report on co-living from officials in his department.
The report raised concerns that the number of developments were become less niche and were now playing a greater role in the country’s housing system, and that many potential sites are outside the city centre.
“I believe the number of applications and permissions to date are comparatively high in the international context. Given the unprecedented nature of these developments, I have concerns that the scale of the developments is moving away from the niche quantity of units the concept originally aimed for to a significantly larger role in the housing system,” O’Brien said.
“I also believe the location of a substantial number of the potential co-living sites is not in keeping with the high density urban centres originally envisaged and that inappropriate locations away from the core city centre have undermined the concept.”
O’Brien added that there is a serious risk that co-living permissions will add to upward pressure on land prices.
The ban will only apply to future developments as any “amendments to the planning guidelines could not be applied retrospectively”.
“Given the new nature of co-living developments it is appropriate that we draw lessons from the existing permissions once they are built out in keeping with the review originally attached the idea in 2018.”
The department said an updated guidance document is currently being finalised.
Former housing minister, Fine Gael TD Eoghan Murphy told TheJournal.ie that O’Brien is right to act. He said:
Co-living was only ever intended to play a limited and niche role in the housing market. It was never intended as an alternative to conventional apartment or housing developments.
Minister O’Brien is of the view there are enough developments in the system to meet anticipated demand and so he is right to act.
‘Dickensian’
Provisions that would allow for co-living were brought in by then Housing Minister Eoghan Murphy in 2018 when he published a document on Sustainable Urban Housing: Design Standards for New Apartments Guidelines for Planning Authorities.
Within this document were guidelines on co-living – or shared living – and how it could emerge as a “distinct segment within the overall urban accommodation sector”.
Such developments should have a minimum 12 metres squared space for single rooms and a 18 metres squared space for double rooms, according to the Housing Department’s guidance.
Since this guidance was published, a number of planning applications have been made to try secure permission for co-living developments in Dublin. The first major proposed development to come to light was located in Dun Laoghaire in May 2019.
At the time, local Fianna Fáil councillor – and now TD – Cormac Devlin told TheJournal.ie that he “wouldn’t even call them bedsits they’re so small”. Green Party MEP Ciaran Cuffe called them “Dickensian in nature”.
Murphy faced criticism for his defence of such developments in the past, after telling a conference that such blocks offer an “exciting” choice to young workers.
At the time Fianna Fáil’s spokespersons on housing Darragh O’Brien, now the Housing Minister, said he was opposed to the concept of co-living and called on Murphy to amend legislation around co-living
Since taking up office as Minister, O’Brien promised to carry out a review of all housing models, including co-living.
Labour Senator Rebecca Moynihan welcomed O’Brien’s decision but said he should have moved on it as soon as he was appointed.
“Minister O’Brien’s opposition to co-living well documented and he knows well that it is not a solution to the housing crisis,” said Moynihan.
She urged O’Brien to urgently issue new guidelines on the location and balance of purpose-built student accommodation to stop developers converting student accommodation into tourist accommodation.
“There are numerous luxury student accommodation builds across Dublin and we cannot allow developers to convert them into tourist apartments at a whim.
“The number of applications to convert PBSA to tourist accommodation indicates an oversupply of luxury student accommodation. He needs to ban developers applying to convert PBSA into tourist accommodation which is effectively co-living by the backdoor.”
Sinn Féin spokesperson on Housing Eoin Ó Broin has today called on the minister to clarify whether he intends to ban or co-living or just restrict it.
“I welcome in the publication of the Minister for Housing’s review into co-living. However, I am concerned that the government is only restricting co-living developments rather that issuing an outright ban,” he said.
Ó Broin said there are already co-living planning applications in for more than 2,000 co-living bed spaces in Dublin.
“If the proposal is simply to restrict this accommodation, undoubtedly some developers will find a way around this. We have witnessed this approach around purpose-built student accommodation and owners seeking to change this accommodation to co-living.
“We needed to see an outright ban so that there is no wriggle room in terms of any new co-living spaces being developed,” he said.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Good they are an awful idea in the present, that would turn into slum ghettos of the future.
We have the national equivalent population of a small city and yet we haven’t been unable to address homelessness and the lack of social and affordable housing for decades.
For the simple reason that politicians have been more concerned with inflating the property market values to benefit their cronies, than addressing these constant issues.
As with every new government, there have been lots of aspirational proposals and plans to address these issues once again, but the likelihood of those actually coming to fruition is pretty low…
@David Van-Standen: There hasn’t been a new government in over 100 years though.
I just hope SF are ready. I know many blue shirts will scoff at that but it’s only a matter of time now. Their day actually will come.
@JusticeForJoe: Doubtful, we need new blood in politics but SF ain’t it.
@JusticeForJoe: Not sure SF are the answer..3 out 4 voters rejected them, they make a lot of noise but they are irrelevant really
@JusticeForJoe: yes, SF have a lot of experience with development work.
Although demolition was more their forte, and when they did do development they sometimes left loads of money in bathrooms.
@D’oh:. says u.
I’m giving them (SF) my vote. 100 years of ‘scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours’ politics is 99 years too long for me.
@JusticeForJoe: I agree that the FFFG merry go round has been a constant feature of Ireland’s political history, I would like to think that Sinn Fein would deliver on the social issues such as homelessness, social housing and infrastructure, that they highlight in opposition.
But almost every political party or individual politician that makes the leap from opposition to actually holding power, changes their tune once they are in power…the question is, will they be any different?
Only time will tell…
@Kevin50: also three out of four voters rejected FF and three out of four voters rejected FG.
@JusticeForJoe: Not going to happen. FG will use how they rebuilt the economy after the crash again, saying they’ll rebuild it after Covid and SF will keep up the pretence of “constructive opposition”.
FF and the Greens will (hopefully) be decimated at the next election and the big winner will be FG. FG have repeatedly said they won’t go into government with SF, and as such they’ll stay in opposition.
@Kevin50: ridiculous comment, 3 out of 4 rejected ff and 3 out of 4 rejected fg. The old boys clubs joined to keep the gravy train going, ff are finished once this government is.
@JusticeForJoe: it always amazes me that many SF supporters expect the public to forget/forgive recent Republican atrocities yet cannot mention FG without bringing up history from almost 90 years ago, long before most present-day voters were even born. I’m not a FG voter but find this inane name calling stops any meaningful conversation.
@Pádraigín O’Sirideáin: nobody was ever scratched by sf. All limbs left intact too… No sf are the epitome of respect and lawfulness no under counter or brown envelopes with sf.
@EillieEs: pick anything else, mother and baby homes, decades of clerical abuse, housing crisis, health crisis, cervical cancer scandal etc etc, these were All done under fg and ffs watch, simple, people who have NEVER voted sf want a change, the “but the ira bla bla bla” isn’t cutting the counter argument anymore. People have had enough and if its 4 years of the same of what ff and fg have done in power for the last 100 years, at least people will know sf were all hot air.
@Kevin50: 3 out 4 rejected the others and SF still got more votes and more 1st preference votes than FG or FF.
@EillieEs: it always amazes me how people forget about things such as the mother and baby homes and Magdalene laundries. Oh let’s not forget church by the church.
@EillieEs: Did you miss the whole thing about Leo and co trying to insist on commemorating the RIC??
@Dave Thomas: they don’t forget, its pure bias. Its very obvious. Why care more about something 40 years ago unrelated to anything today and ignore the countless atrocities and crisis issues created by FG & FF.
@EillieEs: It always amazes me that people called for “the RA” to give up their guns and go down the political route, then, when they did, they rule out their views and their following because of their past! Go figure…..
@Kevin50: did 3/4 not give SF ANY preference? They got the highest proportion of first preferences, and there are a lot of FF voters who would transfer SF over FG, especially outside the pale.
@EillieEs: The recent “Republican atrocities” started 50 years ago, so SF should not be forgiven according to you. But atrocities from 90 years ago are OK to be forgiven? Just wondering is there a timeline/cutoff point for all this. And who was in powerer 10, 20 30, 40 years after the foundation of the state? FF? FG? Because no doubt they were directly involved in atrocities. And they still celebrate “men of violence” at the GPO, Béal na Bláth, etc. Double standards me thinks!
Good to see a dreadful Blueshirt decision overturned. Co-living only fills the deep pockets of developers and does nothing got the ordinary Citizens
@Irish Spider-Man: Nor does it address the rapidly growing number of older people who have never owned a home and will never be able to. Our city developers have a lot to answer.
Good decision. Plenty more to do
Someone should show him how to wear a mask properly.
@D’oh: mouth and nose covered?
Another Waffler who’s decisions will change depending on which way the wind is blowing.
We have one of these planned in the area the delevoper had the audacity to photoshop the view of the Dublin mountains out the picture for the initial consultation some of these guys are crooked and have influence everywhere in politics
@Alan Watts: Hello, neighbour. They really do play dirty.
Probably the first good decision this government has made.
We still have house shares which are a disguised form of homelessness when the occupants are well into their 30s and 40s, and many of these are overcrowded with beds in the living room and bunk beds in bedrooms.
Absolutely the correct decision
Good news. A return to tenement living was always going to be a bad idea and a huge step backwards.
I think they are a great idea in some situations. They are not homes but more like hotels. I have used them in Singapore and KL in the past and thought they were ideal.
People need somewhere to live, co-living is not great but it is a roof over your head with your own door you can lock. Please do not make assumptions based on your own comfortable circumstances (I remember as a child what it was like to be homeless and 3 of us living in a relatives 8 x 9ft spare room), having a space to call their own is the greatest wish of a growing number of people. Yes a 3 bed house may seem the norm but sadly you just have to look around the streets of even the suburbs to see people sleeping in parks and wooded areas without even mentioning the number of people in very overcrowded dwellings.
@Jacqueline McCabe: A co-living room that costs 1,300 euro a month for one person (and shared kitchen and living area with 20-40 other people) is really expensive, and not sure which low income individual would be able to afford it as a roof-over-your-head-only, when private rooms in appartments can be found around the 1,000 euro mark, and less fancy rooms for even less, with less people to share kitchen and living area with.
@Goran Josifov: not for low income. mostly companies pay for these units. but they free up units else where, that low income people may use.
Stupid decision, aimed at shutting up populist whingers who don’t understand that these developments can form part of the housing mix.
Co-living should never be seen as a housing solution for families, but it’s ideal for transient contractors or short term workers. It also keeps such workers out of the regular housing market.
But the extreme left think everybody should live in a semi detached house with a garden, ideally paid for by somebody else.
@John Mulligan: Not at all, housing was once available but the greed is good believe changed all that. the two cars 3 foreign holidays and being on the property ladder attitude killed the idea of social housing and all the things that were done in the past that actually worked.
The Vienna method of housing is the way forward and profits are made.
Not by greedy developers but to build more housing and it continues. Problem is the Gombeen builders and developers wont be able to kill the golden goose like they did the last time
@John Mulligan: Neither should hotels , once the first homeless family is rehoused in these units , the middle class occupants will quickly move out, and the rest of the units will be rented to other homeless families.
About time now to stop all of these development’s that are in planning. It should be a dead stop.
Stop it and any other back door way to do it too. No step back at all.
Ignoring the real problem and using these type of developments was a trick that one party only believed in.
@John Mulligan: Can you point out the “extreme left” please? How many “extreme left” do you think live in this country? Do you know what extreme left is politically? If you read the article you may have seen that the number of applications for this type of housing unit is already above international norms. We dont have a higher rate of seasonal or short term work than our European neigbours (the opposite in fact) so we dont need any more of them. And if our state doesnt need them why do you think developers would like to continue to build them? More importantly, if we dont need them why should they be permitted to build them? They should be building what we need not what suits their bank balance. What we need is proper housing (this doesnt have to be semi detached) with good infrastructure and smart town planning. Most people I know dont expect anybody else to pay for their property. They are happy to pay for it themselves providing the price is reasonable or rent it from the council if possible where they work in low paid industries . I live in a “working class” town. Who are these exteme leftists you speak of looking to destroy our economy by demanding a side gate to their house? I dont meet any. Fairness is not robbery. Its fairness. Common sense is also useful and common sense is saying we dont need any more of this type of development.
not for pinkos
have your say