Blanket ban on one-off housing in Northern Ireland announced

Good news for Northern Ireland, but I wonder what its impact on our border counties will be. Donegal’s one-offs are already partly the result of Northerners living just over the border. Might this galvanise our politicians? Might pigs fly?

A look at Cavan reveals much the same picture even prior to this move

Ha ha …good one MT…..It could be very very possible with the way things are going.

Swings and roundabouts : hopefully there will be some green pasture left before we hit the roundabout.

There hasn’t been much so far in the media down here about this, but I’ve a feeling there’s stuff coming up.

The government need a good kicking about the one-off housing situation here and this new NI rule could be the thing to do it.

It has to be said that the Celtic Tiger and the burgeoning economy has brought an abundance of wealth to Ireland and isn’t it great. I know the downside too, ie sluggish health service, transport congestion etc…, but this ongoing boom has never ever been the case before, for the people and country, bar maybe a brief period in the 1960’s and the Celtic Golden Age of Ardagh Chalices etc..
But did anyone see on the news last night and today’s Irish Times that a report issued by NCB stockbrokers says that growth is to continue at an unstoppable pace. It forcasts that the population of the Republic of Ireland is expected to rise with increased births to over 5 million by 2020 and to over 6 million by 2050. One fifth of the population will be migrant workers. This is incredible to think that the population will be nearing pre-1845 famine levels. Many new homes will be needed and our cities and towns as well as the landscape will be almost unrecognizable no doubt; changing to suit the needs. However, the concentration of people should be in the cities and towns however not sprawling into the country side. The sprawl has to be curbed. High rise will be inevitable too, no doubt.
The report says that there will be almost 3 million cars on Irish roads. It seems like that now. The number of houses is expected to continue growing by around 65,000 units a year until at least 2020.
These are great times, and changing times too. I’d rather be optimistic than pessimistic about it.
Welcome to the 21st century, Ireland.

@MT wrote:

But the thing is, countries such as Britain have long since realised through prolonged exposure to industrialisation that with the bright new dawn comes the odd cloud. People there realised many decades ago that development left unchecked would soon eat up all the remaining beauty of the countryside. Add to this that it’s almost two centuries since the bulk of the British population lived and worked in the countryside and there’s probably a far greater appreciation of what could be lost in the UK..

I have made my arguments on one-off houses in other threads and will leave it at that. However, with regards to the above comment, this could be considered in another light. Perhaps it is precisely because Ireland has witnessed the immense ugliness that industrialized and mass urbanism brought with it in Britain that they often wish and choose to live in the countryside. Maybe it is us who have learned from the mistakes of British urbanism and hence wish to ‘return to the land’, for whatever social or utopian reason. Lets face it, I hardly think holding up such dystopian nightmares like Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, Coventry, Wolverhampton, Swindon and so on as forms of human settlement preferable to one-offs is something we should espouse!

Great idea lets airbrush out all trace of urbanism and countryside by having a 26 county suburbia

i think this is a bad thing.all that this means is developers are going to make more and more money forcing people that might have had a chance of building a house of thier own to paying over the odds for a glorifed shoe box to fill the developers pockets.
One off housing should be allowed but there should be more stringent controls as to the design of the houses.

To take the historical approach I think that one offs should only be permitted if they are of a traditional size; i.e. 300-550 square feet, only if they use traditional materials and only if the occupants work within walking distance of their homes.

To state that developers are building shoe boxes is simply not true; with the exception of a very small number of city centre apartments the average ‘scheme’ built home is between 800-1500 square feet.

MT makes reasonable points and I do not take issue with them. There is, however, a sense of idealism attached to all of this. Many many small scale towns in Britain are truly depressing places with about as much soul as a dead dog. Yes, there are some absolutely beuatiful towns and villages in Britain, but the property prices are usually so high that the average punter ends up living in an awful council house type estate in some dead town on the outskirts of an even deader bigger city. That is very often the reality of urban life in Britain and it brings social consequences with it, not least being the sense of rampant individualism and social fragmentation which have been widely understood to underpin British society since the industrial revolution. If you want to get a good insight into that feeling, have a read of Thomas Carlyle’s Sartor Resartus (from about the 1830s) – a perfect description of the destructive nature of mass urbanism if ever there was one. If vibrant small to medium sized towns can be developed without these social consequences, then fantastic, but if such towns were so fantastic then why is every civil servant in Dublin whining about the possibility of being de-centalized to some ‘backwater’ like Tralee, Castlebar or whereever!!

Sorry for second post, but wanted to add this to first but cannot.

If you want to remove the right of people to build one-offs on the basis that they spoil the environment and are uneconomical, then surely all who would support that logic would also favour regulations that limit the type of car one buys. After all, who needs a 4X4 or a BMW coupe when a Ford Focus or something less damaging on the environment would serve the same function adequately. In short, there should be regulations stating that a single person should only have a 1.1 3 door car, a family should be allowed a 1.5 5 door car and so on. Would this be considered an infringement of one’s personal liberty to possess a car that one desires? If you agree, then you have to agree that one should be allowed to build a one-off according to one’s desires. Before anyone posts anything more about one-offs first of all ask yourself do you practice what you pontificate by owning only the least environmentally damaging form of transport possible given your family and lifestyle circumstances. Would you object if the Government turned round and told you to sell your Audi 2 litre and get a Fiesta as that is all you need for your particular circumstances. I have a feeling that there are a good percentage of the anti-one-off brigade that would find this problematic.

I know we’ve been down this road before (so to speak) so I’ll confine my comments to responding to the above.

The only vehicle I own is a bicycle, the least environmentally damaging of all (except walking?). I do agree that there should be limits put on the types of vehicles that people can buy/own, though I acknowledge that there can be legitimate cases for ownership of certain vehicles, e.g. 4x4s for certain farmers etc.
Is this an infringement of personal liberty? Yes it is. Is this a reason not to do it? No it’s not. Unfettered personal liberty should be avoided at all costs.

I find it interesting, and a little ironic, PDLL, that you fear rampant individualism as the consequence of the type of urban alienation you mention above, for what is our one-off culture if not, at base, pure individualism? Or is it only certain types of individualism that you’re in favour of?;)

The reason people are ‘whining’ about decentralisation, is that it is being forced on them with no consultation, there is a very real fear of being sidelined on the career ladder, and they have no say in the location to which they’ll be decentralised (I’ve said this before, here). Now, rural one-off life isn’t for me, nor small town life (yet?)- I’m a city boy at heart who likes to be near cultural attractions etc., but I do acknowledge that for plenty of people I know, moving (back) to the country is their dream. But they want to choose where they go.
I think it’s a little disingenouous to use the anti-‘decentralisation’ argument as an argument against the viability of medum-sized country towns per se.

@MT wrote:

Maybe it’s apocryphal but apparently the ‘Irish’ film Waking Ned Devine – the one about the village conspiring to win the lottery – was filmed on the Isle of Man as it was felt the countryside there better resembled what Ireland should look like. In other words the Manx countryside has been properly preserved while the Emerald Isle (a description that’s becoming increasing farcical) has been covered in bungalows and McMansions.

Even if that claim is a myth and the film makers were drawn by tax incentives and nothing else, why is it that the people of this island couldn’t give a toss about the environment when the Scots, Manx, Welsh and the English have gone to huge lengths to preserve their rolling green fields, etc. It takes an undemocratic dictate from direct rule ministers in Northern Ireland to force its people to stop the destruction. Meanwhile in the Republic the race to the bottom continues at full tilt.

What will our descendants think when they see an ugly disfigured countryside where every worthwhile view has been blemished with one-off sprawl. Won’t they look at the beauty of the rural landscapes of our nearest neighbours and wonder what the hell we were thinking?

Can you imagine how this Manx valley would fare in the Ireland of the 21st century? I imagine its unspoilt greenness wouldn’t look anywhere near as green on the ‘Emerald’ Isle itself. 🙁

That new (rubbish) movie with Andrea Corr set in Clare in the 60’s (The boys and girls of somewhere or other ?) was also made in both the Isle of Man and N. Ireland. Obviously the only places that look like Clare in the 60’s, including Clare.

Methinks a modicum of perspective is required.

I cannot believe that people have a problem with this. After driving around Cavan, Monaghan, Louth and Fermanagh over the last week, I can safel say that the nicest unspoilt area was Fermanagh. No miles and miles of uber-bungalows….

I’m all for it

Maybe this article might be of interest to some of you:

http://www.antaisce.org/campaigns/antaisce_articles/One-off%20Housing_James%20Nix_i.doc

There are one-offs in the third picture:

@Rusty Cogs wrote:

That new (rubbish) movie with Andrea Corr set in Clare in the 60’s (The boys and girls of somewhere or other ?) was also made in both the Isle of Man and N. Ireland. Obviously the only places that look like Clare in the 60’s, including Clare.

I don’t think the countryside is that much drastically destroyed as yet ….I bet those movies were made in the Isle of man because of the cheaper tax breaks, cheaper costs etc………It was a cheap film.

Ken Boorman made Excalibur here 20 odd years ago in Wicklow and still after all those years the revisionist Walt Disney Arthur epic was only recently made here too as well as Lassie. There is still a bit of some unspoilt scenery.

With a boom and increase in population it is bound display some elements of civilization. We’ve never experienced this before. The last time there was such a building boom throughout the whole country I think it was the Normans who were responsible. Before that it was the mesolithics and neolithics.

Tighter planning laws just need to be applied on where and what to build regarding the countryside. Everyone should get on to their local rural TD’s and complain then. Where’s the mouthy Green Party when they’re needed.

!

And do they genuinely destroy the scene? Are they truly that offensive that you would stop your car on a country road and go – damn, look at those white specks on the horizon – I bet you people live in those – how could they scar the environment in such a selfish manner. If you do, then you would be better off focussing on the road. Equally so, people would be better off cleaning out much of north-inner city Dublin – probably the greatest blight on the Irish landscape at this moment in time. Just because the population density means that a bus-route is viable doesn’t mean that such settlements are either socially or aesthetically desireable.

People are under a bit of a misinterpretation here about the development of the urban and rural landscape in Britain. The migration of people from the countryside to the cities in England was NEVER planned, nor was it even considered remotely desireable by many during the nineteenth century and well into the twentieth century. The removal of human habitation from the British countryside was the direct result of industrial capitalism gone mad. That is a socio-historical fact. It had nothing to do with any form of environmental policy and that it is now considered to be environmentally preferential is a mere curiosity of the vagaries of human settlement history. For nearly two centuries the migration of people from the british countryside was bemoaned as the death of rural England (not its birth – as is being suggested with regard to Ireland). To ignore that fact is to present nothing more than a skewed picture of social reality and history. The vision of a depopulated rural England as something positive is a relatively recent phenomenon.

The rate at which one offs are being constructed varies across the country also, so some areas (like Clare and South Kerry) are much worse affected.

Quick point, landscapes change, even rural ones, and I don’t think anyone is arguing that we need to purposively slow the development of rural areas so they can be used solely as recreational facilities for urban dwellers. The idea that planners generally want to hold rural areas in suspended animation is not true (although some individuals may). Rather, the debate is calling for a balanced perspective on rural development and national policy imperatives. At the moment, the gloves are off and, in some counties, people are apparently allowed build what they want, where they want. In the long term, that is unsustainable, for a variety of obvious reasons.

Personally, I would have no problem with a limited amount of ‘one off’s being constructed, so long as very strict design criteria are met, and the numbers are kept to a minimum (the idea of a formal ‘link with the land’ and a ban on resale or letting of the property for say 5-10 years is a good one). The real focus of rural development should be on the creation of vibrant villages and towns however, with appropriate levels of services. Cork country council have done some very good work in this regard (even if some of the one off housing decisions are puzzling), with the tax incentive schemes for ‘ring towns’ in the harbour area. As a policy, it works, and delivers significant benefits. Other local authorities have a lot to answer for in this regard.

@PDLL wrote:

And do they genuinely destroy the scene? Are they truly that offensive that you would stop your car on a country road and go – damn, look at those white specks on the horizon

They’re only specks because they are far away in that picture :rolleyes:

I agree with Aidan on this the resources should be concentrated on supporting existing villages and providing sufficient support to develop them into vibrant magnets for those already in the hinterlands. Cork Co Co have done some very good work in recent years and it is one County where there appears to be relative order in terms of defining what is and isn’t acceptable.

Ultimately I am against a total ban but the current free for all if sustained will leave Ireland with an infrastructural deficet that will take centuries to solve. When even a Healey Rae is compalining about ‘blow ins’ buying sites the writing is on the wall.

There was an hilarious report on Nationwide during the week about a tradesman father building a house for his son – I dearly hope most people here weren’t watching for fear of a wave of heart failure rippling across the country. What exactly the point of the report was I haven’t quite figured out as yet, but it was so funny as to almost come across as a send-up of the one-off phenomenon. The subjects were the most perfect caricatures.

The house they were building was sited half way up a lightly sloping field, utterly devoid of so much as a twig of foliage, two storeys in height and ‘traditional’ in character, replete with PVC windows featuring plastic arches as a ‘decorative motif’, and a plastic conservatory. Everything that wasn’t plastic was concrete – there was barely a splinter of timber in the edifice outside of the roof trusses. The walls were concrete, the foundations were concrete, the floors and ceilings were concrete – even the staircase was cast concrete.

They then give a tour of the soon-to-be ‘luxury’ interior, with “the underfloor heating” and “the walk-in wardrobe” and “the kitchen yonits along here”.
And cringe-inducingly rounded off with the (apparent farmer) father-in-law who donated the ‘site’ saying “we hope the rest of the family will need sites; we can give them the sites. I have the land to provide them with sites and I think it’s a good thing they stay around, besides paying the money of €60-€100,000 for a site and then build on it – costly job building a house, to have to buy the site like”.

Indeed.

Here it is below. Viewers should note this report contains distressing images from the very start:

http://dynamic.rte.ie/av/228-2126025.smil

@Graham Hickey wrote:

Viewers should note this report contains distressing images from the very start

😀 Best laugh I’ve had all weekend. Thanks G.

Yup- I saw the item. I can just see the report in the papers: ‘A mystery illness hit built environment professonals and interested laypeople at 7.20 on Wednesday last. Doctors reported a surge of heart murmurs, palpitations and blood pressure complaints in surgeries and hospitals all over the country. When asked what the cause was, patients were unable to speak, their faces frozen with shock.’

I think the report was about father-son bonding. I was watching it with my father and we bonded with laughter.

Bah! I want to see that now, but I don’t seem to have the right software (what do you open it in?).

A bit of visual fill-in for the thread:
.

They look very familiar Devin – no idea where they are, but I can show you hundred of ‘developments’ very like that one …

Question.

Is there a correlation between the size and population on the catchment area of local authorities and their ability to plan properly, or is it just plain politics?

Given that Cork CoCo is one of the larger in the state, and that it works very well with the City Council in terms of planning, is it really surprising that, given the total population is around 490,000, they are a relatively strong body? Is there an instituitional critical mass that smaller local authorities cannot muster? If so, is there an argument for reform of local government along super authority line, amalgamating smaller CoCos into joint bodies with single planning areas?

Even in the case of Dublin, is there an argument for having a single planning body covering the entire GDA, out to Greystones, Dundalk, Naas and Maynooth?

@Devin wrote:

Bah! I want to see that now, but I don’t seem to have the right software (what do you open it in?).

When I click the link it opens automatically in Real Player.

Are those houses in Waterford- the coast road heading west out of Tramore? They look quite familiar to me. Though as Aidan says, they could be anywhere.

Except Northern Ireland, obviously.:)

Aidan-
There are Regional Authorities, but they have no legislative backing. Each authority has Regional Planning Guidelines, but they tend to be cited only where it suits developers in their applications, and because they aren’t legally binding it’s difficult for the local authority to use them to refuse an application. One change I’d like to see is these Regional Planning Guidelines becoming binding and the Authorities becoming proper authorities with full planning powers.

My own feelings are that it’s a mix of size and politics- the smaller the area the more likely it is that the decision maker will be known to the applicant. One of the reasons larger authorities are perceived to be better is that they have both the necessary distance from their clients and the back up of a balanced and reasonably well staffed department.

There are Regional Authorities

As far as I can tell, the only thing these ‘Authorities’ are actually used for is as additional subheads in statisical publications.

My take is that it is the both the institutional strength of the planning body (both in terms of the number and quality of planning staff, and the abilities of management) and the relative strength of officials vis politicians operating at a local and national level.

@Aidan wrote:

They look very familiar Devin – no idea where they are, but I can show you hundred of ‘developments’ very like that one …

@Aidan wrote:

Are those houses in Waterford- the coast road heading west out of Tramore? They look quite familiar to me. Though as Aidan says, they could be anywhere.

Well that’s just it, isn’t it? It’s the same scene everywhere! As it happens they’re from a trip I took the summer before last, starting at Portlaoise, through Laois, Kildare and ending up in west Wicklow. It was a gorgeous late-summer day, the countryside was ravishing, but it was just non-stop bungalows … stark ones plonked everywhere … new ones being built … it just became funny after a while, thinking: How could we screw up a land so comprehensively and in so short a time?

… And you have the guy on the Irish Times letters page yesterday attacking the new rule for NI as being against ‘the tradition in the 32 counties…to live in the open countryside’.
I just don’t know …… it’s a weird time to be around.

@PDLL wrote:

In short, there should be regulations stating that a single person should only have a 1.1 3 door car, a family should be allowed a 1.5 5 door car and so on..

In the days when the only Tiger economy was the Asian one, Singapore was said to have a 1,2,3,4,5, economy.
One wife,
two kids,
three bed house,
four good wheels and a high
five figure salary to pay for it all
KB2

With one of the highest densities in the World and the strictist regulation of the private motor car;

they also introduced the Worlds largest automated underground railway in 2004; it seems the good times are still rolling for them as a result of their disciplined planning regime.

From the Irish Times on Friday. Haven’t been in the direction of Leitrim / Cavan in a few years. Is it really this bad? I suppose it’s totally unsurprising:

THE ARTS: WITNESS TO ATROCITY

Alfredo Jaar’s artistic interventions have taken him from his native Chile to Bosnia, Rwanda and Sweden – but his concern now is with what’s happening to the Leitrim landscape, he tells Belinda McKeon

Friday, December 7, 2007

…… A PLACE’S ESSENCE, he argues, is not just physical, not just about measurements and logistics and planning regulations. “Any place is a political place, it’s a cultural space, it’s a landscape,” he says. “It is many, many things. So the architect analyses that, and proposes something that fits so well to that place, that is unique to that place, that responds to the history of that place, to the landscape, to the beauty of the place. And then, when you discover that essence, you can make a proposal.”

He pauses, looks almost pained. “And that’s what shocked me in Leitrim.”

Leitrim? Yes, Leitrim. Tijuana, Catia, Fukuroi, Mälmo, Kwangju, and now Leitrim. Leitrim and Roscommon, to be more precise; for these are the two places which have been on Jaar’s mind over the past year, as he has led a residency with five artists from the area.

…… All five artists will focus on the badly planned and barely designed property development which has run riot over the Leitrim/Roscommon countryside in the last five years.

“The new constructions you see in Leitrim are just appalling,” says Jaar. “They do not correspond to that extraordinary landscape.”

They fail abysmally to connect with the essence of the place, he says, “yet people still buy these places. Because they are looking at them only as an investment. It’s as if architecture and development has become like money.”

Jaar’s tone is genuinely baffled at this point. What has happened, so quickly, in Ireland, is “unbelievable”, he says. He has seen it elsewhere, but it is vastly more “visible” in “such a beautiful country, so small”.

As an architect, how might he characterise the kinds of developments that are springing up like ragwort in villages across these counties?

“Ooh la la,” he says, wincing. “What ugly but diplomatic word can I use?” He sighs. “Let’s say it in another way. The developers are not enlightened. They think that the only way to make money is by building the cheapest and quickest and . . . I just think these developers are making a huge mistake. I think that good architecture is also valuable, and also pays. And it lasts.”

ON THE QUALITY of new Irish housing developments, Jaar uses other words, not especially harsh words, but words he asks me not to quote all the same. In the speech he’ll deliver at Trade, he warns about the dangers of landscape “deteriorating into parody” – strong words. He’s excited about the “aesthetic intelligence” of the five local artists who are making work around the subject of property development, but he seems wary of saying too much on the subject himself, wary of overstepping some mark of propriety.

Jaar has also been asked by the Dublin Docklands Development Authority to make a temporary intervention next summer, but he feels “the same kind of disgust” at the rapid and underplanned development in that area, so he is still deciding “whether an intervention in that context is worth it”. He likes his interventions to have some chance of making a difference, he says.

Dictatorship, genocide, famine, xenophobia, injustice – Jaar’s work has squared up to it all. But he’d never seen an Irish property development before. It obviously takes some beating.

The Trade seminar takes place at King House, Boyle, Co Roscommon, today and tomorrow. Further details: http://www.roscommonarts.com

© 2007 The Irish Times

I think the ban is ridiculous, and bad news for architects.
Most of the best examples of rural architecture throughout history, have been one off houses.

A better plan would be to designate specific areas of outstanding natural beauty, for preservation, rather than telling people what they can and can’t do on their own property.

So, what then if your property is designated as an area of outstanding beauty?

Well, that’s unlucky for you.
But seriously. It’s not like the whole Irish countryside is non stop beautiful scenery. A lot of it is just fields.

@Blisterman wrote:

Well, that’s unlucky for you.
But seriously. It’s not like the whole Irish countryside is non stop beautiful scenery. A lot of it is just fields.

Blisterman seems to be the only person in this news group with an open mind. The rest of you are all control freaks, I mean controlling other people’s ideas and lands.
If you are lucky enough to own a beautiful site why should you not be able to build your home on it?
Surely the beautiful lands and sites of our country should not be reserved only for the birds.
Are architects and planners the owners of the land of Ireland or the land owners?

The wisdom of these fellows seems to be build in an obscure place so that the views are preserved for their benefit when they wish to drive around the countryside on a weekend break.
Sorry lads its the owner who should decide what and where he builds with his own money, not a dreamer or landless expert who knows better.

Ireland was once a republic of free land owners but you guys have turned it into a bureaucracy for your own ends.
Traditionally the countryside was dotted with houses and in the most beautiful sites available to the farmer although many built right on the road or close to it without thought for the sunrise or sunset.

Every field in Ireland is not suitable to have a house on it.

You will find there are rules and regulations regarding the suitability of land for housing, from health and safety regs, water safety, traffic safety, areas of conservation or archaeological significance etc….

generally planners are sympathetic if a sufficient need is shown for housing, but generally will not compromise the above regulations, for the ‘greater good’….

To think that anyone can build anything anywhere is ridiculous….. every democracy must survive on social bureaucratic regulations, for the good of the state and not the self…

henno, you do realise you;re talking to a fantasist wingnut?

@alonso wrote:

henno, you do realise you;re talking to a fantasist wingnut?

when you have lost the argument alonzo you turn to the name calling.
You tried that and now you have turned to the mental factor.
Look in the mirror alonso and see if you have sobered up.
These readers dont need you to advise them.:D

I’m glad I dont live beside someone like you.

Again, it’s Alonso.

I hadn’t realised I was in an argument Noel, such is the lunacy of your rants. I’m well aware that the readers of this site can make up their own minds, which they have done – and they’re rowing in right behind you aren’t they. As for name calling, c’mon now Noel, you threw truckloads of mud at my profession. Consider the name calling responding in kind.

And don’t be glad you don’t live near me, be extremely grateful! If you had a few planners around you. you’d really know about it given your antics over the past year or so.

@alonso wrote:

Again, it’s Alonso.

I hadn’t realised I was in an argument Noel, such is the lunacy of your rants. I’m well aware that the readers of this site can make up their own minds, which they have done – and they’re rowing in right behind you aren’t they. As for name calling, c’mon now Noel, you threw truckloads of mud at my profession. Consider the name calling responding in kind.

And don’t be glad you don’t live near me, be extremely grateful! If you had a few planners around you. you’d really know about it given your antics over the past year or so.

An owner of a house or a shop who wants to change the business use of it for whatever reason that is his business alone.
If I had a shoe shop and business was rotten and I was losing money or just keeping my head above the water and decided to turn it into a chipper because there is none near me why should you stop me?
Planners like you have screwed up this republic.
You own nothing yourself but you want to control all developments.
Why dont you just mind your own business and get a real life rather than being a pain in the ass for your neighbours who want to develop their business plans.

Ah yes that;s it. To be a good planner, you must first be a landowner. Not all of us can climb the filthy greasy pole that you occupy Noel. Some of us are interested in the common good. I know the word “common” is anathema to people like you, as are concepts such as “neigbourhood”, “community”, and “society”. It’s all about giving benevolent charitable landed types like you free reign is it? Fuck the poor, screw the unfortunate, bollox those without access to the surplus wealth to support an election campaign or 4. Noel you’re a twisted old crank who is really bringing this site into disrepute.

I would go on, but when one side of an argument is so obviously self defeating, there;s no point. Anyway I’ve real planning to do. Happy New Year

Whatever decision is reached on one-off housing in rural areas, I think it’s wrong to claim that we should be allowed to build houses today simply because that is what was done in the past, or because it is an “Irish tradition”.

One hundred years ago if you lived in the countryside, your commute to work lasted the thirty seconds it took you to walk out your front door into your field. Living in a house on a farm was practical and sustainable because by and large everybody worked from home. Nowadays, for the vast majority of people, living in the countryside means leaving your house and getting into your car to drive the thirty-mile roundtrip to work in the local town. It’s not the same thing.

I’m not entirely happy with banning one-off housing, but it may well be the lesser of two evils. And what I am convinced about is that if we are having this debate, then we should at least be honest as to the reality of what living in the countryside really is.

1)
@noel o’gara wrote:

Blisterman seems to be the only person in this news group with an open mind. The rest of you are all control freaks, I mean controlling other people’s ideas and lands.

If we were controlling your ideas, would we really be putting such nonsensical dross into your gob?

Word of advice: don’t mistake lack of control over your own ideas as proof that others have taken charge of them.

2)
@alonso wrote:

Ah yes that;s it. To be a good planner, you must first be a landowner.

That was my first thought. But thankfully Noel has spoken out of both sides of his mouth (not for the first time- see point 3 [below]), giving us this dilly of a pickle to resolve. Ooh, I do love puzzles!!! And what did he say to contradict himself?

@noel o’gara wrote:

Are architects and planners the owners of the land of Ireland or the land owners?

Sorry lads its the owner who should decide what and where he builds with his own money, not a dreamer or landless expert who knows better. [my emphasis]

3)
Anyway, Noel, I have a question for you. It’s one question, and I shall put it very simply, so please do your best to answer it in as straightforward a manner as possible:

Anyone else see a certain level of hypocrisy in embracing the concept of ground rent and rejecting planning legislation? I wonder what Michael Davitt – Mr O’Gara’s apparent spiritual advisor in matters of the land – would make of it?

I asked it before during a discussion on your patriotic interventions in the matter of Dartmouth Square, but you hadn’t yet graced us with your presence. Now, however, you don’t have the convenience of that excuse at your disposal. So- your thoughts?

@alonso wrote:

Ah yes that;s it. To be a good planner, you must first be a landowner. Not all of us can climb the filthy greasy pole that you occupy Noel. Some of us are interested in the common good. I know the word “common” is anathema to people like you, as are concepts such as “neigbourhood”, “community”, and “society”. It’s all about giving benevolent charitable landed types like you free reign is it? Fuck the poor, screw the unfortunate, bollox those without access to the surplus wealth to support an election campaign or 4. Noel you’re a twisted old crank who is really bringing this site into disrepute.

I would go on, but when one side of an argument is so obviously self defeating, there;s no point. Anyway I’ve real planning to do. Happy New Year

alonso, you know that communism was sold on the back of the slogan ‘the common good’
Communism was a dismal failure and blighted the lives of countless millions of people for almost a century.
Thats what you are selling as a planner. Please do us all a favour and resist that tempting excuse for your interest in planning our city. You do it for the money alonso. Dont kid yourself. I bet you know how to raise an invoice and write a massive bill.
The guys who climbed the greasy pole provide business ideas and jobs for people.
You have only to look at the money the Irish civil service bureaucrats are screwing out of the earning workers to see that they are much more interested in themselves than the poor and downtrodden.
The ship of state will steam on when the people are nearly starving with the hunger. Then they will throw them crumbs.
Have you heard of the sale by Mary O’Rourke of Eircom for billions of euros?
We all owned that company collectively but Mary decided to screw the public in a heady market and milked billions of their savings and put it in the pension fund of the civil service.
Now that is real socialism.
They took the savings ot the thrifty who bought shares to provide the pensions for the Gardai, the politicians and civil service. And that was just a top up for the fund. No wonder they are awarding themselves huge pay rises while the economy of the country is slowly grinding to a halt.

Hmm.

So what you’re saying is that it’s better to cut out the middle-man (government) so that the rich can get the pleasure of screwing the poor directly?

We need to make a distinction between what CAN be done with what is the RIGHT thing to do.

To use a construction example – would you support my right to build a large shed out the back garden for the storage of nuclear waste? After all, it’s my land. Surely it’s my decision alone what gets put on it? You don’t need to be communist to believe in the common good – you just need to have concern for the welfare of others.

Or am I missing something here?

Noel put away the Jameson.

What have communism and the Eircom sale to do with planning? Please explain, and try to steer clear of random irrelevant tirades. You sound like a first year Arts student staggering out of the Buttery bar.

Noel believe me, if I was in it for the money, I’d go around buying ground rents and expoiting morbid interests in mass murder like you do. Who the fuck is starving in Ireland? Go on. Show me the famine Noel. You’re an anti-Republican, anti social fantasist with a tenuous grasp on the realities of modern Irish life. Stick to selling tiles Noel, You have no place here with honest, intelligent people with integrity. I aim in my job to maximise benefit for society. You aim to maximise benefit for Noel O’Gara.

And it could have all been so different for you Noel. You could have been a hero. You could have exposed the massive inadequacies of the local authority system, like I often do as part of my job. You could have been the one to “stick it to the man” and most here would have enjoyed the show. You could have used all that cash to highlight the pathetic weaknesses in the Irish planning system, the weaknesses we on this board grapple with every day of the week. But NO, because of your inherent greed, backward cute hoorism and monstrous chip on your shoulder, you decided to lock the gates and park the cars and caravans. You decided to deny the student dwellers and the children of D6 and D4, a vital piece of open space. You went for the traditional Oirish Fianna Fail County Councillor muck savage approach instead of the measured intelligent approach, .And you lost spectacularly.

I hope you are proud of your achievements in 2006 and 2007

Well said alonso. Sums matters up precisely.

Ironically Noel, your activities exhibit all the worst traits of those sectors of Irish society you so despise.

@alonso wrote:

Noel put away the Jameson.

What have communism and the Eircom sale to do with planning? Please explain, and try to steer clear of random irrelevant tirades. You sound like a first year Arts student staggering out of the Buttery bar.

Noel believe me, if I was in it for the money, I’d go around buying ground rents and expoiting morbid interests in mass murder like you do. Who the fuck is starving in Ireland? Go on. Show me the famine Noel. You’re an anti-Republican, anti social fantasist with a tenuous grasp on the realities of modern Irish life. Stick to selling tiles Noel, You have no place here with honest, intelligent people with integrity. I aim in my job to maximise benefit for society. You aim to maximise benefit for Noel O’Gara.

And it could have all been so different for you Noel. You could have been a hero. You could have exposed the massive inadequacies of the local authority system, like I often do as part of my job. You could have been the one to “stick it to the man” and most here would have enjoyed the show. You could have used all that cash to highlight the pathetic weaknesses in the Irish planning system, the weaknesses we on this board grapple with every day of the week. But NO, because of your inherent greed, backward cute hoorism and monstrous chip on your shoulder, you decided to lock the gates and park the cars and caravans. You decided to deny the student dwellers and the children of D6 and D4, a vital piece of open space. You went for the traditional Oirish Fianna Fail County Councillor muck savage approach instead of the measured intelligent approach, .And you lost spectacularly.

I hope you are proud of your achievements in 2006 and 2007

Eircom means nothing to you because you didnt invest in the shares, so when the politicians put all that public money in their own pension fund that meant nothing to you either perhaps because you benefit from it.

But the rest of the country lost it or rather it was all simply taken from the public entirely for the benefit of the civil service.
The public owned it and it was sold to them on the pretense that the money was going into the public purse.
The public lost on the double. Once for buying out their own business and again by having those funds put in a private fund.

You make yourself sound like a latter day saint.
I bought the park from the owner and I own it now. I paid him for it and he inherited it from his dad and other relatives.
What do you see wrong with that?
I offered it to the residents and they never made any attempt to buy it because they expect the corpo to buy it for them and maintain it for them as a park.

I naturally want to use it for the business of car parking because there is an obvious need for such and why shouldnt I when its my land? I could just build a farm house there but the car park was a much better business plan and after all we do live in a capitalist country much to your distaste. Parking also serves a pressing need for many city folk who cant find any parking space in the area.
It was always private property and the corpo bought the lease and made it into a park about twenty years ago. That was done against the wishes of the owner who was willing to sell to the corpo but they messed him about so much that he was delighted to sell to me in the end.

Have you got something against private ownership of land?

I think its you who has lost it.
As for planning alonso, you just cant see the wood for the trees. Stand back and take a look at the lousy planning mess that Dublin has been turned into by fellows like you. You are too immersed in the detail to see the bigger picture.

@noel o’gara wrote:

Eircom means nothing to you because you didnt invest in the shares, so when the politicians put all that public money in their own pension fund that meant nothing to you either perhaps because you benefit from it.

But the rest of the country lost it or rather it was all simply taken from the public entirely for the benefit of the civil service. The public owned it and it was sold to them on the pretense that the money was going into the public purse.The public lost on the double. Once for buying out their own business and again by having those funds put in a private fund.

Believe me noel, oh chief ignoramus of the pillock tribe, Eircom meant a lot to me. I said it has nothing to do with planning! Can’t we trust you to at least read?

You make yourself sound like a latter day saint.

If not being a greedy runt muck savage makes me a saint, well then slap a halo on me and call St. Alonso!

I bought the park from the owner and I own it now. I paid him for it and he inherited it from his dad and other relatives. What do you see wrong with that? I offered it to the residents and they never made any attempt to buy it because they expect the corpo to buy it for them and maintain it for them as a park.

Oh nothing! But closing it kinda backfired. As for breaching the law, well that was just plain thick and ignorant.

I naturally want to use it for the business of car parking

As one does in all Georgian Squares:rolleyes:

because there is an obvious need for such and why shouldnt I when its my land? I could just build a farm house there but the car park was a much better business plan and after all we do live in a capitalist country much to your distaste.

Yep. Hate that Capitalism so I do. Even though last week you claimed I was only in it for the money. Looney alert!!!

Parking also serves a pressing need for many city folk who cant find any parking space in the area.
It was always private property and the corpo bought the lease and made it into a park about twenty years ago. That was done against the wishes of the owner who was willing to sell to the corpo but they messed him about so much that he was delighted to sell to me in the end.

The history of Dartmouth Square and it’s ownership is utterly irrelevant to it’s zoning and the use that is most desirable there today

Have you got something against private ownership of land?

Eh yeh. All pinko commie lefty capitalist tories like me do.

I think its you who has lost it.

Nah. But for your benefit I’ve tried to debate at your level. Somewhere between the gutter and Yorkshire

As for planning alonso, you just cant see the wood for the trees. Stand back and take a look at the lousy planning mess that Dublin has been turned into by fellows like you. You are too immersed in the detail to see the bigger picture.

Fellows like me? Am I now a Fianna Fail politician as well as a capitalist hating Gordon Gecko type paradox? Jesus I’ve more coats than Eoghan fucking Harris at this stage.

I recommend everyone google Noel O’Gara. It’s fucking priceless shit. Especially his manifesto on politics.ie. He makes this guy look sane
[url=http://]

…

Rural new build law is ‘unlawful’

The controversial law restricting building in Northern Ireland’s countryside – PPS 14 – has been declared unlawful. Last month the High Court made a similiar ruling on PPS 14. Today’s ruling represents its final decision.
Mr Justice Gillen made his decision at the end of a lengthy judicial process in the High Court. But it does not mean the law will be dropped immediately. In the short term PPS 14 will remain on the books.

People who were refused planning permission since PPS 14 was introduced in March, 2006 now have two avenues to seek redress – an approach to the Planning Appeals Commission or a legal route by way of application for judicial review.
To read the article in full, please click on the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7061592.stm

Shame about PPS 14 being reversed – although this decision was inevitable given the previous ruling 🙁

On the bright side though, at least this has bumped back up the hilarious guff from NoG – and the even more entertaining put-downs by St Alonso 😀

I wonder where NoG is now – he’s been quite for a while; maybe he has just been incarcerated for harassing UK police officers over the “real” Yorkshire Ripper – again?!

Good to hear about that. I don’t know what you guys have against one off housing.
Sure, a lot of it is crap. But look at the amount of great buildings which wouldn’t exist, if this law applied everywhere:

Fallingwater, Tugendat House, Nearly every great countryside mansion.

@Blisterman wrote:

Good to hear about that. I don’t know what you guys have against one off housing.
Sure, a lot of it is crap. But look at the amount of great buildings which wouldn’t exist, if this law applied everywhere:

Fallingwater, Tugendat House, Nearly every great countryside mansion.

Hmmm indeed; point out to me how many great countryside mansions or award-winning designs have been thrown up in places like Liscannor and I’ll buy you a pint 😉

Sad fact of it is Blisterman that Fallingwater is the exception – and the car-dependent subruralisation that has taken place is largely unsustainable, a visual blight on the landscape, and a financial burden to the rest of society through much higher servicing costs.

There is a place for one-off housing – but not in the wholesale degrading manner by which it has been allowed in the 26 counties in recent years.

Please excuse my ignorance but what is the policy on “one off” housing in the rest of the U.K.