At the end of 2017 the then government published a long-term National Development Plan estimating that the population of Ireland would rise by one million people to reach 5.7 million by 2040.
On current trends that level could now be reached over the next three years and by early in the next decade the population could top six million.
Whether the current rate of increase will continue, of course, is a big question but for now the figures are only going one way. And in terms of how we live and how we plan the future of the State it raises some really big questions. Here are five of them:
How high will the population go?
The population is now 5.38 million after rising by close to 100,000 in the 12 months ending April 2024, according to the latest Central Statistics Office figures.
In a note on the figures, Kevin Timoney of Davy stockbrokers said the recent forecast by the broker that the population could reach 5.9 million by 2030 were underpinned by the latest CSO data. This is above the predictions which had been made by most other forecasters.
It also raises questions for national planning; the Government is currently updating that National Planning Framework, which underpins plans for investment in housing, infrastructure, social services and how the planning regime deals with all this. In the latest draft update, the forecasts see the population rising to 6.1 million by 2040.
On current trends – annual increases of close to 100,000 – this number would be reached much sooner. Either way, the State is already short of housing and other key infrastructure and is running to catch up – the level of investment needed in everything from housing to water, to energy, schools, hospitals and so on is substantial and timelines for delivery need to be much quicker.
Of course the population has been boosted first by an exceptional period of economic growth and second by a big inflow of Ukrainian refugees. The impact of either of both of these could diminish. This is the key swing area of population size.
Inheritance tax in Ireland: What are the rules, and could they be changed in the budget?
So how many houses do we need to build?
Pick your number. The total relies on two things. The first is population growth and on this basis the Economic and Social Research Institute has calculated an annual requirement in the mid 40,000s.
A persistently higher growth rate in population – a continuation of what we have seen over the past couple of years – would push this higher.
The second factor, specifically excluded from the ESRI calculation, is the so-called backlog, in other words accounting for the tens of thousands of young people who are living at home now because they cannot afford to move out. The Commission on Housing suggested that this could involve the need for an additional 212,500 to 256,000 new homes.
In its recent note, Davy stockbrokers – on the basis of its upbeat growth and population estimates and trying to slowly reduce the backlog – calculated that as many as 85,000 new homes per year might be needed, around twice existing building levels. The Irish Business and Employers Confederation (Ibec) argued in its recent economic outlook that a target of about 60,000 a year would be reasonable. Great promises will be made in the general election campaign, but how to deliver them is the question.
Where will the additional people live?
This is a key question to be answered by the updated National Planning Framework. The existing national strategy was based on people living in “denser” – in other words smaller – homes nearer to city and town centres, in line with environmental targets. It was also based on ensuring that all parts of the State shared in population rises, via a goal of balanced regional development.
Ibec’s recent quarterly economic commentary raises some questions about revisions to earlier regional population targets contained in a draft of the new National Planning Framework. This takes on board the likelihood of a faster rise in the population, now expected to be 6.1 million by 2040.
However, the draft update – now out for consultation – increased population growth projections for the mideast and midlands, where population by 2040 is expected to be 21 per cent above 2023 levels, and reduced the projected growth rate for the northern and western regions, where the expected rise is now 11.3 per cent.
According to the Ibec, this does “raise concerns about the prioritisation of balanced regional development in the National Planning Framework”.
The revised figures are no doubt driven by recent population trends and perhaps are thus more realistic. But they will increase pressure on housing, infrastructure and services in the more crowded parts of the country, notably the Dublin commuter counties, while raising questions about the extent of development in the north and west.
How will they live?
A new part of the framework is the aim for denser living close to transport links. The slow pace of development and questions about the alignment of national and local planning mean only limited progress has been made here.
This kind of living – as opposed to commuter sprawl – is seen as essential to reducing transport emissions, in particular. Yet many of the incentives in the housing market are still promoting development in the commuter counties and developers complain that local plans often stymie new housing above unreasonably low limits.
There is a circle to be squared here, as well as a persuasion of the next generation of homebuyers that moving away from the traditional “semi-d” and living in a smaller unit closer to work will be an attractive option. And decisions on what exactly “denser” living looks like in design terms – it is apartments, terraced housing, a mixture of the two or what?
How will we deliver all this?
How Ireland can respond to this sharp and unexpected rise in the population has been at the centre of public debate and will be the key economic issue in the forthcoming general election campaign.
A host of pre-budget submissions to the Government have underlined the pressures caused by the rising population and the risks to economic growth and social cohesion of not addressing these.
The impact is already evident in another area of the data. Emigration was also high last year at just under 70,000, with 34,700 of these being Irish citizens. We can only speculate, but it seems fair to conclude that many of these left because of the housing crisis.
The prevalence of those from the younger age group also probably reflects a decision by some to spend a few years overseas before returning. A significant number of Irish people – about 30,000 – returned during the year, presumably in most cases to take up jobs here. So there was a net outflow of 4,700 Irish citizens.
So far, despite a lack of progress on the vital area of housing in particular, immigration has continued, clearly driven by tens of thousands coming here to work – many in well-paid jobs giving them access to housing – as well as the influx of refugees from Ukraine and asylum seekers from other countries. But if houses and the associated infrastructure are not delivered, will economic growth slow and the rise of the population taper off? Possibly.
However the recent Davy note had an interesting perspective, saying that while forecasts often predict a fall in net migration (the balance between immigration and emigration) over time due to capacity constraints “we have a different outlook”.
Immigration has been trending upwards for well over a decade, it says and “rather than cyclical factors which likely explained increases until about 2016, the trend in more recent years could represent a structural change due to factors like Brexit, wars and climate change”.
For this reason, the brokers believe, population growth will remain buoyant as the strong economy continues to attract more people to work here – and in turn as Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development research showing participation rates of migrants in the labour market are high, this should help support tax revenues.
If this is the case, it raises even more fundamental questions about national planning and indicates the need for a much higher level of State investment on a prolonged basis.
