SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS viewed tens of thousands of times have falsely claimed that planning has been lodged for an asylum seeker centre in a Tallaght suburb — and that local TD Paul Murphy is objecting to it on that basis. Neither claim is accurate.

The Department of Justice told The Journal that the site is not intended to be used by the International Protection Accommodation Services (IPAS). Nor is there any mention of such a use in the planning application lodged with South Dublin County Council.

Instead, the planning application is for a housing development. Murphy, who represents the Dublin South-West constituency, lodged an observation with the council over the planning permission for the development in Kingswood.

He cited possible technical problems with the plans, and raised concerns that they are vague and could be interpreted to show a  “co-living arrangement”.

Murphy’s previous objections to co-living developments are public record.

IPAS Centre

The incorrect claim that the building will be used as an IPAS centre was popularised in a video posted online.

One version of the footage has been viewed more than 83,800 times since being posted to X on 16 July.

“This is going to be turned into a dwelling for 16 people,” a man in the video says, as he shows what appears to be a derelict house in a Tallaght suburb. “We know what that means. Everyone knows what that means.”

He goes on to say “Paul Murphy [is] contesting this to be turned into an IPAS centre”, before castigating Murphy for not supporting anti-immigrant protests.

Other X posts which claim that Murphy is objecting to an IPAS centre have been viewed more than 150,000 times.

However, this claim is untrue.

The building shown in the video is based in Kingswood, Dublin 24, as confirmed by planning applications, as well as Google Street View images of the house.

In a video posted to his BlueSky social media account on July 18, Murphy described the false claims and his actual involvement in the planning process.

“They’re inventing an IPAS centre to be mad about,” he says. “There’s no proposal for it to be an IPAS centre. We’re not opposing it being an IPAS centre.”

Responding to inquiries from The Journal, the Department of Justice said it had “not received an offer of international protection accommodation at this location and is not considering it for use”.

The plans for the property online make no reference to a change of use of the building or indicate that it is being converted into accommodation for International Protection applicants.

Instead, the application seeks permission to remove a “redundant antenna” and build a large extension on the building.

Paul Murphy did submit an observation to the application, co-signed with councillor Jess Spear, who, like Murphy, is a member of the political party People Before Profit – Solidarity.

However, this planning observation contained no reference to an IPAS centre being built.

Planning objections

Other social media posts focused on Murphy’s stance towards the planning application, but made different claims, namely that he was objecting to the construction of housing in his area.

These claims have been viewed tens of thousands of times on X, and a post entitled “Paul Murphy TD objecting to residential development in his neighborhood” posted on 21 July attracted more than 550 comments on Reddit’s Ireland forum.

These claims have an element of truth, though are misleading without context.

Murphy had posted letters in the local area about the planning application which said “we are concerned that the intention is to circumvent the ban on co-living arrangements”.

The letter also said: “We desperately need more housing, and to bring vacant houses back into use.”

His submitted observation on the planning application made the same arguments.

Co-living housing is specifically designed for many people to live in while sharing common areas, such as kitchens and living rooms — not unlike some student accommodation.

However, co-living developments for the general population are controversial and have been de facto banned since 2020. Micheál Martin had described co-living arrangements as being at risk of becoming “glorified tenement living”.

So while it’s fair to say that Murphy raised an issue with new housing in his observation on the planning application, this was only on the grounds that it could be a co-living development.

It remains is unclear if the application is for a co-living space at all.

Drawings submitted as part of the application show two “proposed” large buildings, each with kitchens, dining areas, and multiple bedrooms: nine in total.

A screenshot of the site plans that, taken at face value, appear to propose two large new buildings.

However, these buildings are so large that they would not both fit on the physical site. This discrepancy is noted on Murphy’s observation.

“The plans submitted are mislabeled,” Murphy and Spear wrote. “The ‘floor plans’ show two sets of drawings labelled ‘proposed ground floor’ and “proposed first floor’. We can only assume that this is a mistake. Nonetheless, it is causing confusion and concern that the owner intends to build a home with 9+ bedrooms, 3 kitchens, and so on.”

The layout may be suitable for small co-living space, but it could also just be a very large home.

“It seems, to be honest, to be a mistake in the planning application,” Murphy said in his Bluesky video. “But still, there are strange things in terms of proposals for 16 places at two different dining tables and this type of thing.”

“I suspect the council will go back looking for more information, because it should be used as accommodation for people. It should be a house, or a house and a granny flat.”

The Journal’s FactCheck is a signatory to the International Fact-Checking Network’s Code of Principles. You can read it here. For information on how FactCheck works, what the verdicts mean, and how you can take part, check out our Reader’s Guide here. You can read about the team of editors and reporters who work on the factchecks here.