On December 19, the Circuit Civil Court ordered the removal of 29 unauthorised modular homes in South Dublin. Irish Times
This has reignited an uncomfortable debate – how do we enforce planning law during a housing emergency without actively undermining innovation and supply?
I am a huge advocate for the wider adoption of modular construction to deliver more social housing in Ireland. But the facts of the case are clear.
- The developers proceeded without planning permission. On that point, there is little room for argument.
Yet the wider implications of this ruling go far beyond one site, one developer, or one local authority.
At a time when Ireland is struggling to deliver enough homes of any type, the optics of demolishing housing, especially non-traditional housing, raise serious questions about whether our planning system is fit for purpose in its current form.
This is not an argument for ignoring planning law, but rather an argument for modernising how it is applied.
Implications of Unauthorised Modular Developments.
I will reiterate:
- The homes were being built without permission
- The land (previously occupied by mobile homes) was significantly altered without approval
- Environmental and visual impacts must be taken seriously
Now, allowing unauthorised development to stand automatically would:
- Undermine the planning system
- Create unequal treatment between compliant and non-compliant homeowners
- Set a precedent encouraging further unauthorised development across Ireland
I’m not sure exactly what the developers, Branach Developments, were thinking when they went ahead with this.
My only hunch is that the decision to build without obtaining planning permission was a calculated risk based on some or all of the following:
- Anticipation of prolonged judicial reviews during the planning application process (which is a real concern with medium to large developments in Dublin)
- The hope that “housing need” would be enough of an excuse to soften any penalties from government authorities
Unfortunately this gamble has failed decisively.
From a rule-of-law perspective, I agree with the court’s decision – as much as it pains me as a modular advocate. But from a housing-system perspective, the outcome is deeply problematic.
And this very public failure sets back wider modular adoption in Ireland by years!
When a high-profile case involving modular homes ends in demolition, the message received by the public is not nuanced. It is simple and damaging:
“Alternative homes are risky. They will get torn down.”
This saddens me, as I understand how catastrophic this could be in terms of PR for offsite modular construction. In a country already sceptical of non-traditional homes, this could reinforce fear of modular homes in the minds of the general public, not confidence.
Is Demolition the Only Good Resolution in This Case?
Even when legally justified, I believe that demolition in this case produces outcomes that conflict with stated housing policy goals.
- It Reduces Much Needed Housing Supply
The land in question was already used previously as a mobile home lot, so that area has already long been sectioned for some form of housing. A transformation of that site to provide more housing could benefit a lot of Irish residents.
I believe that the state could have used this opportunity to enforce some harsh, yet unique obligations on the builders, i.e, 40% of the completed homes MUST be on a social or cost-rental accommodation scheme, or encourage existing residents to agree on at least one unique, major obligation that the developers MUST comply with at all times.
But with demolition unfortunately, homes that could have housed people, lawfully or conditionally, are removed from the system entirely.
2. It Generates Unnecessary Waste
Demolishing structures that were already taking form raises obvious concerns about sustainability.
3. It Discourages Innovation
Self-builders, small developers, and families considering modular or non-standard homes become more risk-averse, not more compliant. This shouldn’t be a huge issue if you adhere to planning guidelines.
4. It Increases Public Fear
The Irish public is already cautious about non-traditional housing, and this is what we are trying to reduce – as we believe modular techniques can be used to provide a lot of social and affordable housing in Ireland. Cases like this reinforce scepticism in the Irish public rather than trust.
None of the above excuses the original breach, but at least, I hope it does make a case for demolition to be a last resort, not the default response.
Irish Planning Law Is Not Designed for Crisis Conditions.
I believe this to be the core issue at this time.
Ireland’s planning framework was developed for stable growth and incremental development. So over the last couple of years, I have noticed that it struggles with:
- Rapid-build technologies
- Modular and temporal dwellings
- Emergency-scale shortages
All of the above leads to longer planning timelines for developers, and creates a binary system where there is either:
- Full permission or Full enforcement
- Approval or Demolition
I believe that what is missing during a housing crisis is a corrective middle ground – a way to address breaches without destroying housing that could be brought into compliance. I understand that this already exists with Retention Permissions, but that is mostly for single homes and smaller dwellings.
For residential projects like the one above, could there a sort of middle ground that benefits the Irish public during a housing crisis? Even on a temporal basis?
Could Councils Learn to Regularise Housing during a Crisis Instead of Demolishing? If so, How?
Full disclosure, I had help from ChatGPT for some of the unique recommendations below.
But before we get to the main points, I must add that calls to “fix the planning system” often overlook a critical reality – local authorities are under-resourced.
For years as an Irish resident, I have expected Irish councils to:
- Process complex applications
- Enforce compliance
- Accelerate housing delivery
…all while facing chronic staff shortages, rising caseloads, and limited technical capacity during an unprecedented housing crisis. This is unfair, especially since some of my suggested solutions have not been grounded in a deep understanding of the system.
But what if there was a concrete solution right now? And all it required was a little political willpower to make that happen?
Ireland deserves planning reform, and planning reform must be backed by funding. This is where the €14 billion Apple tax windfall, received in full by the government in July 2025, becomes relevant.
1. Conditional Regularisation Orders
During a housing crisis as severe as this, councils could first issue time-limited conditional regularisation permissions instead of demolition. But only if they have the capacity to assess and monitor them.
Conditions could include:
- Mandatory landscaping and natural green beauty creation/preservation
- Drainage and infrastructure upgrades
- Social and Cost-rental allocation of some units
- Fixed review periods (e.g. 5–10 years)
APPLE TAX ROLE
Some of the money can be ‘locked’ into:
- Hiring additional planning officers
- Training planning specialists in understanding modular and other new forms of modern construction
- Creating dedicated “crisis regularisation teams” within councils
Without staff, councils default to blunt enforcement. With staff, they can manage nuance.
2. A National Emergency Housing Regularisation Framework
Rather than leaving councils exposed to legal risk, the State could introduce a form of statutory emergency regularisation framework, activated during periods of declared housing shortage.
This framework would:
- Redefine eligibility criteria clearly
- Limit regularisation to genuine housing need
- Exclude speculative & luxury development
- Set national environmental and design standards
APPLE TAX ROLE
This could fund:
- Central legal drafting and guidance
- National environmental assessment templates
- Shared legal support for councils facing judicial review
This reduces inconsistent decision-making and protects councils from being individually targeted by shady developers.
3. Separate Planning Classification for Modular Homes
Ireland’s modular housing is still being processed through systems designed mainly for traditional builds.
I belive that we need a distinct classification that addresses:
- Foundations and permanence
- Expected lifespan
- Relocation or removal conditions
APPLE TAX ROLE
I believe that modular construction has its place for the faster delivery of social and cost-rental housing in Ireland. The state could invest in:
- Research and more pilot programmes (See County Limerick)
- International best-practice studies from EU countries that have implemented modular successfully on a large scale
- Technical guidance for planners and inspectors
This reduces confusion, speeds up decisions, and discourages planning “gambling”.
5. Environmental Restoration Bonds
Where unauthorised development has damaged land or visual amenity, councils could require restoration bonds rather than demolition.
These bonds would:
- Fund the restoration of the natural habitat
- Repair landscape damage
APPLE TAX ROLE
This could provide:
- Upfront public capacity to manage and monitor restoration
- Enforcement resources to ensure bonds are not symbolic
This protects environmental integrity without automatically destroying housing.
Conclusion.
Regularisation is not the same as approval.
Penalties, fines, remediation costs, and strict conditions would still apply. Repeat offenders should face escalating consequences, and planning law must remain enforceable.
But enforcement should aim to correct harm, not simply erase outcomes.
The South Dublin case is legally straightforward but politically and socially complex, as it highlights a system that currently:
- Still depends on planning policies that worked before the housing crisis
- Discourages innovation
- Offers little corrective pathway
If modular and alternative homes are genuinely part of Ireland’s housing future, then the regulatory framework must evolve to support that future, not undermine it.
