Too little, too late. If there is a single phrase that should be banned from the political lexicon, that’s the one, typically expressed as a world-weary sigh in response to the emergence of some long-delayed Government initiative. The big challenge for Opposition speakers is when the initiative – belated and all – is undeniably a Good Thing. It can’t be ignored, so they are obliged to welcome it. The only way to wrangle this cruel dilemma is to agree that something has been done but to immediately denigrate it as “too little” and “too late”. So although it’s undoubtedly a public good, it’s no good to anyone now because someone sort of suggested something a bit like it in 1996, so what’s it worth now. They may have a point and damage may have been done by the delayed response. But a Good Thing is never too late.
So here is an admission. I shouted the stupid phrase (with expletives) at a newspaper headline on Sunday morning. “Split homes into flats, minister to tell older voters,” blared the Sunday Times.
“Older people will be encouraged to divide their family homes into flats under a radical new Government plan to boost the housing supply,” said the text. Radical? New? It’s absolutely neither.
Minister for Housing James Browne knows that because the report notes that the plan mirrors a British policy that allows older homeowners to split their houses into two flats.
Renters forking out €2,000 per month are paying the price for water charges debacle
Hitting target of 41,000 homes to be built this year will be ‘challenging’, Minister for Housing admits
Holiday homeowners underestimate at their peril the anger among those locked out of the housing market
Water utility warns on reforms needed for housing targets: ‘The scale of the task is immense’
It’s nearly 10 years since a version of this idea was proposed by the Abhaile Project (set up by social entrepreneur Michelle Moore); seven years since architects Ciarán Ferrie and Dermot Bannon spoke at the Expert Conference on Housing for Older People about the project, a non-profit that would help older homeowners reconfigure their houses to create two homes with a shared front door and utilities. No planning permission would be required, and work required to comply with building regulations would be minimised.
They envisaged a comfortable, future-proofed ground floor for the ageing owner, along with independent living for both them and a tenant in the affordable single-occupancy unit above, whose rent would be non-taxable. The idea seems wildly practical in a country where some 160,000 older homeowners are living alone in family-sized homes. Many of these live in mature, well-serviced urban locations, but are struggling to heat and maintain their homes on low incomes. The upsides to the scheme are obvious. It would give older people a chance to stay in their newly comfortable home and among their community. By introducing young tenants to the neighbourhood, it would help rejuvenate it and get the best out of the underused infrastructure. With particular housing sizes and designs, the idea could no doubt be adapted to include two separate own-door flats, which would bring its own planning challenges. But it’s been done elsewhere, so the successful elements shouldn’t be difficult to copy.
Of course much depends on the homeowner’s openness to the idea, not to mention any caring or controlling offspring’s concerns for the parent’s safety or their own inheritance. With the Abhaile Project – now known as Ava Housing – close family and friends are encouraged to get involved in the process from the start. When the owner has to move out of the property to go into full-time residential care, or dies, the agreement expires.
But here’s the problem with dawdling on the way from enlightened policy to action. Ten years ago, when Abhaile’s experts were already talking about the scheme, the cost of retrofitting a cold, neglected old house to the non-profit’s non-luxurious standards was about €45,000. Now the same job would top €100,000, according to a professional in the trade.
So the fact that this is being touted as “new” and “radical” is both irritating and offensive. Some might even respond with an expletive-laden “too little, too late”.
Too late, certainly, in my own case, since my eldest daughter and I split the family home several years ago – non-luxuriously but at joint eye-watering cost. At the time, interested observers assumed that in a housing emergency there would be grants specifically for this kind of work. No was the answer then, and no remains the answer now. Several columns on the subject failed to elicit a single curious phone call from either a national or local politician.
Nice grant schemes are available for energy upgrades, vacant homes, derelict homes and the rest, but there is nothing for underused homes; nothing for a policy that would create additional housing capacity at low cost compared with the shocking environmental and financial demands of new units; nothing for a policy that would allow older people to age in place in warmth and comfort and company; nothing – oddly – for a policy that would render resounding net value to the State.
No single scheme is a silver bullet for the housing problem but some are blindingly obvious. Have a look at Ava Housing, Minister, congratulate them on their forward thinking, and then have a chat about some serious scale-up funding. This is not new or radical. The overseas examples are there. The domestic pilot schemes are there. You’ve no doubt been hearing a lot about cowardly politicians too fearful to take a risk. You have the power to do this, and much else, now.
