The study initiated by Planning Minister Ciaran Cuffe in April 2010 and which was due to be published in September 2010 is now to be published, according to today’s Independent, “in the coming weeks”.
The study of course has a limited remit. According to Professor Rob Kitchin at the National University of Ireland at Maynooth (NUIM) : “I would expect the DEHLG house count to come in well under the 120K rate (probably nearer the CIF rate). It only has reference to post-April 2007 housing estates where there is vacancy above 10%. It therefore a) excludes estates where vacancy is below 10%, b) excludes unoccupied/unfinished one-off housing, c) it assumes that estates started prior to April 2007 are both finished and have occupancy levels above 90%. There are lots of houses in pre-2007 estates that are empty; the same with one-offs. Irishpropertywatch.com reports about 115K houses for sale in state and 20K for rent. In other words, it’s a partial survey and we’ll need to wait for census 2011 for a fuller picture”
According to Treacy Hogan at the Independent (who seems to speak with confidence), the report “will” show 2700 ghost estates (up from 600-odd roughly estimated by Professor Kitchin and others) and less than 100,000 vacant dwellings (down from the headline 250-350k estimates from DKM, NIRSA and UCD, though these would not be fair comparisons as you’re not truly comparing oranges with oranges). And surprise, surprise many estates suffer from sewage, water and road access problems.
Now that the dwellings have (to an extent) been counted and the problems analysed, the next stage will be to decide what happens with the estates. And the term “demolition” seems to get worryingly frequent mentions in Treacy’s article today. NAMA is also reported to own the lion’s share of the ghost estates, though it is unclear to what extent last Thurday’s announcement raising the minimum limit of loan exposures at AIB and BoI to €20m will remove some of these estates from NAMA’s control and return them to AIB and BoI.
It seems as if the plan is to first publish the report and then decide on the future of ghost estates. As mentioned on here previously (for example here and here and here) it is a concern if estates will be demolished without first being offered to the market that might be able to make innovative and economically beneficial use of what would normally be valuable national infrastructure.
NAMA Wine Lake 
[…] NAMAWineLake previews ghost estates report. […]
As you say, we’re not comparing oranges with oranges here. The DEHLG study focuses on ‘unfinished estates’ (note not ghost estates – a ghost estate is a subset of unfinished estates) of 2 or more units built post 2007 (an unfinished estate might have an occupancy of 90%, for example). It is also not a study of overall vacancy, again only looking at a subset of all vacancy – so we need to be very careful when making comparisons between studies. The aim was not simply to gauge vacancy but to determine what estates would need some form of redress, hence the more limited focus. My understanding is that the report will be released with a policy document. It’ll certainly be interesting to look at both the data and suggested paths forward once published.
I hadn’t realised there was such a difference between the NIRSA, UCD and DKM reports, and this DEHLG report.
I hope you’ll be telling the media not to accept the DEHLG report as confirming the CIF guesstimate of 100,000 houses.
Hi Rob and Jim, I think Jim makes an important point and Rob will no doubt appreciate how the distinction between even the DKM, UCD and NIRSA studies was ignored and simplified in the media. When the DoEHLG study comes out I think the media will go with the headline “Vacant homes only one third of previous estimates” and it would indeed be helpful to the debate if those behind the other reports could make it clear in simple terms to the media that the reports have different remits.
There was always a confusion between excess stock and over-supply, and in my opinion, nobody properly explained to the public the difference between the two. I think that the minister for housing also confused the two.
Ahead of the release next week, it might be worth preparing a media briefing on the different methodologies taken by all of the reports.
We have provided a media briefing on the differences but it has been ignored and it doesn’t matter how many times you clarify things it continues to be ignored. There is good alignment between DKM/DEHLG, UCD and NIRSA estimates, as documented in the Haunted Landscape report (the issue isn’t the method, its the conflation of different data, oversupply with vacancy including holiday homes being the most common). We have a piece prepared for when the new figures are released that explains the differences between measures and provides the relevant estimates. We just need the new report to plug the new figures in.
I take it that you chaps have noticed the large set of extra data that has appeared on Ghostestates.com since Google Streetview enabled ground level checking last Friday.
Indeed Mank, though it’s a pity that the Google car didn’t make it past the gates of some of the estates (though looking at the condition of some of the access roads, they might have needed a tow-truck to get them out!). For a photographic representation of the national ghost estate landscape, you won’t do better than
http://www.ghostestates.com
Paper never refuses ink. Makes report writing quite the novel means of lying.
I believe the report from the DEHLG will be published in the next day or so.
Let’s watch the Vested Interests fight it out.