South Dublin councillors reject motion to ease retention permission
A proposal for a more “sympathetic” approach to retention permission for homes has been rejected by South Dublin councillors.
The motion, put forward by Cllr Linda de Courcy at the September meeting of South Dublin County Council, called on the local authority to adopt a “proactive, sympathetic and facilitative” approach to retention applications when an existing dwelling is being used as a home.
Speaking at the meeting, she said the motion was intended to “prevent anybody becoming homeless unnecessarily”.
“This is directly affecting families and making them homeless and leaving them in financial distress, as well as the unimaginable trauma of thinking that you’re going to have a child or a grandchild homeless,” she said.
“If someone is made homeless in this day and age, they have nowhere to go.”
However, Eoin Burke, Director of Planning, warned that the motion could not legally be implemented as a “blanket policy which automatically favours or facilitates the granting of retention permission”.
“If something doesn’t comply with the objectives of the development plan legally, we have to refuse it,” he said.
Mr Burke added that enforcement cases could also involve complaints from neighbours who were affected by an unauthorised development.
“Something can seem like it’s not having an impact to the person living in it, but to the neighbour, it’s having a huge impact,” he said.
“That is why the case-by-case basis is the only method to assess them.”
Cllr Justin Sinnott said his concern with the proposal was the potential for “commercial abuse” and the risk of rewarding unauthorised development.
“I think all of us as councillors have come across situations where certain developers will use anything they can to get what they want done for themselves,” he said.
Figures provided by the council showed that of 132 retention permission applications made in South Dublin during 2025, 77 were granted planning permission with conditions.
Cllr Yvonne Collins said the planning system had to be applied “fairly and consistently”.
“We can’t have one law for one set of circumstances and another law for another set of circumstances,” she said.
She said there was a risk that people could avoid seeking planning permission in advance if they believed they could subsequently secure retention permission.
Cllr Pamela Kearns said: “If you break or bend the law for one, no matter how heartbreaking the case is, you’re opening the door for a floodgate of people applying, and you have a precedent.”
Meanwhile, Cllr William Carey supported the motion, saying: “I do think it’s expressing the concern that we have around the issue of housing.”
Ultimately, the motion was defeated, with 25 councillors voting against it, eight voting in favour and three abstaining.