European Environment Agency cites Dublin as a worst case scenario of urban planning

The full article from boards.ie:

Frank McDonald, Environment Editor, in Copenhagen
Irish Times, 04/10/2006

Dublin’s sprawl is being used by the European Environment Agency (EEA) as a “worst-case scenario” of urban planning so that newer EU member states such as Poland might avoid making the same mistakes.

In a major report to be published next month, the Copenhagen-based agency highlights Dublin, Madrid and Istanbul as case studies to show what can happen when development is allowed to run out of control, according to its main author, Ronan Uhel.

Mr Uhel, who heads the EEA’s spatial analysis unit, said Ireland was “very much on the map in relation to urban sprawl – not just in Dublin, but also around towns and villages throughout the country” as a result of “extremely passive” planning policies.

“When we got the first results, we were absolutely surprised. We couldn’t believe what we saw on the maps, because they showed that sprawl was so extensive in a country where the geography is not designed for such a thing.”

Although sprawl was happening all over Europe, Dublin’s case was particularly acute. “We’re using it as an illustrative case for cities in eastern Europe to show what can happen if you let the money flow without having a vision of balanced development.”

With Poland and the other new EU member states receiving “massive support” from the EU for new motorways and other road schemes, Mr Uhel said they “need to learn from this kind of experience and understand why such developments can occur”.

The report would show that new roads “attract urban sprawl, not just around big cities but in the countryside too”.

In the 1990s alone, he pointed out, sprawl in Europe had consumed a land area equivalent to three times the size of Luxembourg. “Nobody is addressing this issue. There is no vision at European level.”

One of the main purposes of the report was to “say to our neighbours [ in central and eastern Europe] not to make the same mistakes” and instead, to follow the example of cities such as Munich, which had contained its growth within strict limits.

“We want to show what kind of options a city has during a period of positive development – either you control it or you let it go. In that respect, Dublin and Madrid are very much alike, because they let the market decide, so we’re using this as a warning.”

Referring to the proliferation of housing in rural areas, Mr Uhel said farmers were “making huge income from selling sites, much more than they would make if they worked the rest of their lives” and this had “huge implications for the countryside”.

Three-quarters of all Europeans now live in urban areas and this is expected to rise to 90 per cent by 2020 based on current trends, according to the EEA.

© The Irish Times

I highlighted that paragraph as it links nicely to Minister Parlon’s recent statement:

Parlon calls for rural planning reform
From:ireland.com
Saturday, 30th September, 2006

Farming should no longer be the only profession that qualifies people for planning permission in rural areas, Tom Parlon, the Minister of State for Finance, said yesterday at the launch of a party document on the rural planning system.

At the National Ploughing Championships, Mr Parlon said rural dwellers should have the same rights as urban dwellers when it comes to deciding where they live.

Speaking on behalf of the Progressive Democrats, he said: “The policy we are launching is based on one fundamental principle – that local people who live and work in an area, or have strong family ties with an area, are entitled to build homes in that area unless there are compelling safety or environmental reasons why they should not.”

He added: “We must end the slow death sentence for rural Ireland that current planning regulations have created. The definition of a local person should include emigrants returning to the rural area in which they grew up.”

He said it must also cover people born and reared in rural areas with no access to family lands and people living in a rural area for seven years who have forged strong links with the local community.

As well as defining the word “local”, the document proposed the establishment of three independent appeals boards within An Bord Pleanála to cover the three non-Dublin European constituencies. These boards would include representatives of rural community organisations.

The document also seeks the publication on the web of information about the success rate of planning applications submitted by engineers and architects. This information was already in the public domain but was not readily available.

The policy, drawn up by a committee under the chairmanship of Noel Grealish TD, also recommended that in areas experiencing population decline, there should be incentives created for people to move into these areas rather than the barriers that currently exist.

It also suggested that where a person was seeking permission for a house specially designed to accommodate a person with a disability, there should be few planning restrictions put in their way, other than the necessary environmental and road safety provisions.

The policy document concluded that “with a more balanced and just approach to rural planning, we can create rural communities with a sustainable future to allow people within these communities to reap the many benefits associated with country living”.

Meanwhile, the Irish Cattle and Sheep Farmers’ Association announced that its president, Malcolm Thompson, had brokered a deal with the developers of a wind farm in Bantry, Co Cork, which included the grounding of some cable and the avoidance of environmentally sensitive areas and lands.

Well clearly Parlon isn’t troubled by the suburbanisation of the countryside. But no doubt given his form for parish pump politics he’ll have much too parochial an outlook to realise that this very thinking is being held up as an example across Europe of how not to go about planning, ie. a one-off free for all.

To put this in context can you imagine a junior minister for finance in any normal European country blabbering on about getting more bungalows built in the countryside? Sometimes I wonder if this is the only thing that matters in politics in the Republic – ‘getting yer man permission on his site’. Does every elected official down there see themselves at heart as nothing more than a section 4 waving county councillor?

I think MrParlon is a mixed blessing for the PD’s

The only way to control sprawl (Planners, even those with the best intentions, have given up) is to bring in EU legislation.

Even then it may take a decade to implement it (just look at the wanton disregard for Sac’s (Jet ski anyone?).

By then it may be too late (in a way it is already too late).

It was always thus – at least since the 60’s. Its not so much corruption as lack of education among politicians allied to the appallingly clientalist system for relection. Oh – and lack of leadership of course.

Most people don’t care and tune out the subject – maybe the EU could change that by levying a specific income tax (on everyone) for the cost of sprawl? (or else levying those building one offs – with the full cost).

I would prefer to levy everyone – then we might get people to sit up and take notice.

@MT wrote:

But no doubt given his form for parish pump politics he’ll have much too parochial an outlook to realise that this very thinking is being held up as an example across Europe of how not to go about planning, ie. a one-off free for all.

I’d say its not so much about whether he realises. It’s more that he and the people who vote for him don’t care. @MT wrote:

Sometimes I wonder if this is the only thing that matters in politics in the Republic – ‘getting yer man permission on his site’.

That kind of thing is all that matters to a large part of the electorate. Irish people seem largely unconcerned at any downstream implications.

The key mobiliser of Irish people seems to be GAA. If you are looking for some concept of allegience or society beyond that, I’m not sure it exists.

@MT wrote:

is corruption the most significant contributor to the lack of planning in each country’s largest city?

No it is not corruption. Sprawl is public policy and has been for 50 years.

Clientelism in Irish politics isn’t necessarily down to corrupt politicans though. We’ve a political system that tends to focus all political resources directly on to local constituency issues with very little interest in long term planning. Poliiticans are in multi-seat constituencies and there’s constant point scoring etc required to maintain their position and insure retention of their seat.

The Irish system’s arguabably highly democratic, but it’s not great for long term planning / big picture issues.

It’s always been noted that dictatorships tend to have excellent planning, great roads, trains that run on time. Perhaps our generally chatoic system is just an indicator of our very deep and locally focused democracy at work!
i.e. we can’t organise anything!

This whole scenario is something that I have given some considerable thought to. I met Frank McDonald on one occasion and his views about anything changing in relation to one-off housing urban sprawl etc. was totally black. It was quite depressing talking to him really. If Irish people are not going to change people who feel strongly about these issues are forced with either the option of emigrating or putting up with it. I’ve struck a balance – I compartmentallise it and stop worrying about it and a couple of times a year I go walking in Devon & Cornwall and see how things might have been.
On a positive note there are some signs of changes in the Irish physce (wrong spelling) Could anyone imagine t20 years ago that a smoking ban would have been accepted with such little furore. It is only 8 years ago when I first came home that people on C.I.E. buses would light up beside the no-smoking sign. I went up to the driver to complain one day and he was smoking too.
On building sites most Contractors are acutely aware of Health & Safey Legislation and I have frequently witnessed foremen or H&S officers frequently women bawling out labourers for not having a helmet or a high vis vest on – again could that level of compliance have been imagined in 1970.
There are signs of change in relation to one off houses – the Planners are getting more ingenious at coming up with excuses to refuse that Councillors can’t argue with them on. Sightlines, percolation areas, landscape plans and technical aspects that Councillors can’t understand are being used. It is bizarre in any case that they have anything to do with looking at individual applications as that is supposed to be an Executive function. We are blessed with having a 3rd party appeals system – I know personally of at least 4 awful mega developments in rural areas that would have happened except that someone stuck their head up and appealed to An Bord Pleanála.
Finally the poster who mentioned the E.U. is I think spot on. There are already many directives that can be used as sticks to beat poor proposals. On the other side of the argument it is frustrating on occasion when you get a lot of nimbys and banannas objecting to perfectly good schemes. They always seem to be the most adept at coming up with innovative strategies to stop good developments.