Government-by-numbers

Extensive coverage on Radio 1 this morning.
Debate on right now with Pat Kenny. Roche will be on shortly.

Housing needs of returning emigrants can be met in one-off houses in their home places.

This is illegal under EU law. At which point someone challenges the law saying that they are being discriminated against because of where they were born and everything becomes a free-for-all

@Andrew Duffy wrote:

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2005/0413/breaking1.htm

New rules for one-off housing to be published
Last updated: 13-04-05, 07:08

The new housing guidelines were discussed and approved at the Cabinet meeting yesterday and is reported to allow those with links to the land to be entitled to planning permission.

© 2005 ireland.com

This will exclude 90% of the current applicants for suburban type houses in rural areas, SACs HAA’s are still protected by superior legislation in the form of EU regulations whatever guidelines are written at Dublin level.

@http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0413/planning.html wrote:

Provision for emigrants in new housing rules

13 April 2005 10:38
Finalised planning guidelines on one-off housing published by the Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, have expanded on draft proposals to ensure returning emigrants are facilitated by local authorities.

Mr Roche received 105 submissions on draft proposals that were published last year by the former minister, Martin Cullen.

He said that the overall thrust remains unchanged to ensure that what he termed reasonable proposals on suitable sites for people contributing to the rural community are accommodated.

Among the other changes is a new provision allowing people in exceptional health circumstances to build close to a particular environment or family support.

A ban on brick in all cases and a requirement that all roofs be of a particular colour slate have also been lifted.

It is also stated that all one-off housing developments will be allowed in Special Areas of Conservation or SACs as long as what the guidelines calls the integrity of the area is not adversely affected.

Detractors had viewed the draft proposals as a charter for bungalow blitz and said they went against EU and national policy.

The finalised guidelines can be expected to re-ignite the white-hot debate on planning in Ireland – something that in all likelihood will end up in the courts.

What a populist strategy with certain elements although experience would suggest that the numbers benefitting from this reprehensible measure do not have sufficient scale to tilt an election as evidenced by both Local Elections and both By-elections where Fianna Fail were comprehensively beaten.

This was announced a year ago
@RTE wrote:

Martin Cullen says that the current overturn rate of 76% should be reduced to around 10%.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0304/planning.html

It’s an utterly meaningless story. They might as well announce that “judges have been ordered to increase the conviction rate in courts to 90%” or “doctors have been ordered to reduce waiting lists”.

The government announces the same plans every few months. What’s the news going to be tomorrow? “Government to have a meeting about making a decision about Dublin airport in the very near future.”

Taisce – quick, get me a membership form!

We’ve no grown-up policies here.

@RTE INTERACTIVE wrote:

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0413/planning.html

Rules on housing common sense: Roche

13 April 2005 13:24
The Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, has said the guidelines on rural housing, published this morning, were balanced and based on common sense.

Mr Roche said that dispersed housing development was part and parcel of Irish life and it would be simply wrong to legislate against it.

He said the aim of the guidelines was to eliminate inflexibility in the planning process and to eliminate property speculation.

The finalised planning guidelines have expanded on draft proposals to ensure returning emigrants are facilitated by local authorities.

Mr Roche received 105 submissions on draft proposals that were published last year by the former minister, Martin Cullen.

Among the other changes is a new provision allowing people in exceptional health circumstances to build close to a particular environment or family support.

A ban on brick in all cases and a requirement that all roofs be of a particular colour slate have also been lifted.

It is also stated that all one-off housing developments will be allowed in Special Areas of Conservation or SACs as long as what the guidelines calls the integrity of the area is not adversely affected.

Detractors had viewed the draft proposals as a charter for bungalow blitz and said they went against EU and national policy.

The finalised guidelines can be expected to re-ignite the white-hot debate on planning in Ireland – something that in all likelihood will end up in the courts.

What is the deal here? Cork County Councils excellent design guidelines and Fingals excellent link to the land all thrown out, what part of balance does Dick not understand?

How can Special areas of conservation not suffer a loss of integrity by the insertion of large mock Georgian Haciendas sporting spanish style tiled roofs and plastic windows?

Pure electioneering at its best. 2 years in which to allow a mass of new one off houses, as it will take at least that length to get the challenges through the courts, by which stage, FF will be back in power and can blame the courts/Brussels for the problem.

Minister for or against the Environment, Dick Roche,

The concept of Minister for local government makes a lot more sense, the Environment is percieved to be an obstruction to development by this current administration as for heritage that is a dirty word in todays cabinet.

this is so disheartening 😡 , I cant imagine many tourists will want to visit irish beauty spots filled with modern bungalows competing for attention on the hillsides. whilst I have some sympathy with locals,wanting to live close to where they work I am concerned that many exceptions will occur and will add to the blight of our countryside. bnc

@DOE Rural guidelines wrote:

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/wvNavView/Planning?OpenDocument&Lang=#I30

Rural housing development in Special Areas of Conservation and other designated areas
While the guidelines continue to make clear that statutory designation is not intended to operate as an inflexible constraint on rural housing development, it is also now being made clear that planning authorities, before granting approval to development in such an area, must be satisfied that the integrity of the area will not be adversely affected.

64 words that mean absolutely nothing. :confused:

@DOE Rural guidelines wrote:

Design Aspects
The guidelines stress the need for a balanced and informed approach by planning authorities in assessing the design aspects of proposals and not to be overly-prescriptive e.g. putting a ban on brick in all cases, or requiring that all roofs be of a particular coloured slate.

Not overly prescriptive, i.e. Any thing goes, if you don’t proscribe you can’t assess as there are no criteria on which a judgement can be made. 😡

@DOE Rural guidelines wrote:

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/wvNavView/Planning?OpenDocument&Lang=#I30
Strengthening Rural Villages and Smaller towns
The purpose of some new text on this issue is to mention that, as well as housing needs in rural areas, which is what the guidelines are mainly about, housing also needs to be promoted in smaller towns and rural villages to ensure that they offer attractive and affordable housing options.

How do you stregnthen villages by ensuring that the potential customer base is given a cheaper option outside the development boundary? It is a simple choice either you promote higher densities or you allow a planning free for all.

@DOE Rural guidelines wrote:

http://www.environ.ie/DOEI/DOEIPol.nsf/wvNavView/Planning?OpenDocument&Lang=#I30
Holiday and Second Home Development
The section on holiday and second homes has been expanded to make a better distinction between the different types of development in this category, including the growing trend of ‘resort’ type development when old estates are developed as golf courses with associated hotel and residential development, and the need for planning policies to distinguish between these different types of development

How can you enforce a local needs policy if people resident outside the state have an equal right to develop houses in un-sustainable locations? It would be impossible to ascertain if people are retiring or simply purchasing/developing a holiday home.

@DOE Rural guidelines wrote:

Exceptional Health Circumstances
This is a new provision which indicates that planning authorities should grant permission in cases where exceptional health circumstances, as certified by a doctor and the relevant disability organization, may require a person to live in a particular environment or close to family support.

This is the icing on the cake, why would you want someone with a disability living miles from support services such as doctors, Shops, pubs and churches? Many elderly people have been ‘rescued by neighbours’ after accidents in towns, how does an elderly person raise the alarm if they are a mile from anyone else. To use the disability angle is a disgraceful PR stunt and entirely inappropriate given the statistical economic disadvantage suffered by disabled people for generations. A car dependent environment is the last place that a disabled person would generally wish to be.

@RTE INTERACTIVE wrote:

Plannning Institute warns on housing rules

13 April 2005 22:51
The Irish Plannning Institute has said it has serious concerns about the long-term implications of new guidelines easing restrictions on rural housing.

The Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, said the guidelines were both balanced and sustainable. However, the Institute has expressed worry about both their impact and the resources for their implementation.

Earlier, Mr Roche said that dispersed housing development was part and parcel of Irish life and it would be simply wrong to legislate against it.
He said the aim of the guidelines was to eliminate inflexibility in the planning process and to eliminate property speculation.

The finalised planning guidelines have expanded on draft proposals to ensure returning emigrants are facilitated by local authorities.

Mr Roche received 105 submissions on draft proposals that were published last year by the former minister, Martin Cullen.

Among the other changes is a new provision allowing people in exceptional health circumstances to build close to a particular environment or family support.

A ban on brick in all cases and a requirement that all roofs be of a particular colour slate have also been lifted.

It is also stated that all one-off housing developments will be allowed in Special Areas of Conservation or SACs as long as what the guidelines calls the integrity of the area is not adversely affected.

Detractors had viewed the draft proposals as a charter for bungalow blitz and said they went against EU and national policy.

The finalised guidelines can be expected to re-ignite the debate on planning in Ireland – something that in all likelihood will end up in the courts.

A sure what a planner know?

Lads, this what joe soap wants and only the Green party objected and believe me the government can live with that.

Of course its still disgraceful. This was announced before the local elections and it didn’t do FF much good that time.

It’s crazy that beautiful places on the western seaboard are being ruined when tourism is the obvious future for these places.

At least if people are going to build in the countryside then they should be properly designed. But that would be too proscriptive!

An ironic provision if ever you saw one – indeed if one was to follow though on the ‘exceptional’ nature of the circumstance, the new building would be demolished upon the death or moving on of the infirm person from the existing house.

Of course that is a ludicrous suggestion but I think it reflects the nature of the problem we have, the very heart of the issue: the fact that – as Emer O’Siochru pointed out today – this is a quick-fix solution to a short-term economic problem, but the impact of which will affect the appearace of the landscape, the cost of services and utilities, and the country’s environment for centuries to come.

If this type of development had been pursued 50 years ago in Ireland, I think we’d be kicking ourselves for allowing it to happen. Instead of our current state of affairs being taken as an opportunity, the exact opposite is happening – it is being exploited for political gain.
That’s what annoys me so much about this – the idea that because Fianna Fáil are lucky enough that the landscape hasn’t been overly developed in most places, that now’s the opportunity for them to take advantage of this – ‘it hasn’t been wrecked by someone else yet, so now’s our chance’.
Not that I don’t think other parties would have done excactly the same – everyone bar the Greens it seems is in favour of this, or at least would be if in Govt.

I’m not so sure that the greens are the only ones opposed to this although Deirdre De Burca & Ciaran Cuffe spoke very clearly against it, Fergus O’Dowd the Fine Gael Environment spokesman was very clearly against it and I think that it could be a very good policy for Fine Gael to take on in their attempts to win back some urban seats in Dublin as another theme on their rip-off Ireland campaign.

I totally agree with your analysis on the longer term implications of this Graham and this will come back to haunt us going forward.

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?p=33091#post33091

If Fine Gael were in government I suspect it would be a very different story.

Here’s the link to today’s interview with Frank McDonald and Dick Roche.
Emer O’ Siochru is interviewed as the first item on the programme. Scroll to roughly 1 hr 35 mins in for Roche & McDonald.

http://www.rte.ie/rams/radio/latest/rte-todaywithpatkenny.smil

Just listening to it, you have to ask the question – what is the point of making procedures more favourable to those with direct links to an area? What is the point?
If there is nothing wrong with one-off housing, why the emphasis on those with links to an area or those with special needs?!

I think these measures are long over due for far too long people have been complaining about people doing what they want to do. Thanks to Dick Roche the nanny state is gone.

@jungle wrote:

This is illegal under EU law. At which point someone challenges the law saying that they are being discriminated against because of where they were born and everything becomes a free-for-all

Do we not have enough of them meddling Brussells bureaucrats as it is. Why should we listen to them that has already concreted all over their own places?

Quaint green little Ireland won’t put food on the table.

There are also doubts as to its constituitionality.

And Belgium has properly planned rural areas; despite being far more densely populated than Ireland (10 million people living in 30k km sq, as opposed to 4 mill living in 70k km sq) they don’t have this continuous suburbanisation of the landscape. They have sustainable villages, well preserved and well served by public services. We could learn a lot from those ‘meddling beaurocrats’.

And quant little Ireland does put food on the table, in the form of tourism revenue. Which, particularly if you take transfer payments out, is the single biggest industry we have.

@Thomond Park wrote:

A sure what a planner know?

For once I totally agree.

As for your opinions on the forced insitutionalisation of disabled people I doubt even you could call on Europe to support that. If a disabled person that requires family assistance is not allowed live beside their family – how can you possibly say that is right? I would prefer to see humans being happy living in pink pvc and asbestos skyscrapers than listen to this preening rubbish.

Dick Roche is not anti development, unlike some of the people contributing here.

@Rockflanders wrote:

For once I totally agree.

As for your opinions on the forced insitutionalisation of disabled people I doubt even you could call on Europe to support that. If a disabled person that requires family assistance is not allowed live beside their family – how can you possibly say that is right? I would prefer to see humans being happy living in pink pvc and asbestos skyscrapers than listen to this preening rubbish.

Dick Roche is not anti development, unlike some of the people contributing here.

That is not what I said at all, what I said is that towns are a better location for disabled people as they are capable of living independent/semi-independent lives in whatever house type they decide is most suitable for their needs. Putting them out beyond the development boundary makes them completely car dependent and cuts them off from their social networks and essential facilities such as retail, leisure and churches/community etc.

If this government had such a commitment to disabled people why is this one of the only European Countries where the disabled have no ‘rights based protection’ under law?

Why have no facilities such as this http://scotland.archiseek.com/news/2004/000258.html been developed.

It was a PR stunt and one in very poor taste.

I challenge you to stand anywhere in Belgium apart from the first world war battlefields and not see a building.

Leaving aside Flanders, there are plenty of places right across the south of Belgium that are characterised by villages and wide open fields. The area south of Mons, Namur and around Huy are cases in point.

WE DONT HAVE ENOUGH HOUSES IN THIS COUNTRY!

Is THAT not the main problem

No, its not the problem. The problem is that we don’t have enough houses where we need them. The population is growing dramatically in and around our larger cities (because thats where the jobs are), its falling out side of those areas. We’ve built almost 80,000 new units last year in this country, and will do the same this year. Thats at or slightly above what the market requires. The rates of price increase are coming down accordingly. All of these things are welcome. Its not about being ‘anti-development’.

‘Just building houses’ is only part of the issue, the real problem with this measure is that it will contribute to unsustainable patterns of development. I don’t mean that in an environmental sense, rather that it will be all but impossible to service a new raft of widely dispersed houses. Getting public transport, telecomms (incl broadband) sewage (Roche has to know that the Commission are getting hot n’heavy over septic tanks), health care, policing etc to a newly dispersed rural population is just compounding existing problems. The transport issues alone merit the scrapping of this proposal; its a classic case of unlearning lessons.

Its already fairly straighforward to build in the country, this just facilitates rural property development as a form of social welfare. Future generations will pay the price of it, just as we pay the price of the 70s madness.

@Aidan wrote:

The problem is that we don’t have enough houses where we need them. The population is growing dramatically in and around our larger cities (because thats where the jobs are), its falling out side of those areas. We’ve built almost 80,000 new units last year in this country, and will do the same this year. Thats at or slightly above what the market requires. The rates of price increase are coming down accordingly. All of these things are welcome. Its not about being ‘anti-development’.

Bullseye Aidan

If a disabled person that requires family assistance is not allowed live beside their family

I call your b*llshit. If there was a single case of a disabled person being forced to live miles from their families because of evil planners, they’d be paraded around like the goat at the Puck fair by the usual selection of local councillors, builders, auctioneers and landowners keen to to peddle sites. This is similar to the b*llshit claim that local children are not being allowed to live near their parents on the family farm. There are simply NO documentated cases of this happening.

Let’s face it; this is a big industry which makes money for landowners, auctioneers and builders. Except for this small self-interested group, most country people are against houses being built all over the place. Of course there are some country people who’ve swallowed the “evil Dublin 4 city types telling us what to do” false populist indignation peddled by the aforementioned concillors cum builders/landowners/etc. but most see it for what it is.

I heard councillor a particular FF councillor from Mayo being made look like a complete fool on the radio about a year ago as he berated An Taisce for wanting to “ethnically cleanse the countryside” . The An Taisce representative asked him could he put a number on the amount of objections they (An Taisce) had made in Mayo in the previous year. After a whole load of bluster he admitted he didn’t; the An Taisce representative told him that they had made ONE SINGLE objection during the year. In the meantime, drive about five miles out the road from this councillors home town in Mayo and observe the rows of not yet completed bungalows with “For Sale” signs from the councillor’s auctioneering business. This is happening all over the country; “local people” apply for and get planning permission on the farcical basis that they intend to live “near their roots” only to stick up a “For Sale” sign four months later without ever spending a single night on the property.

Obviously if I was involved in this industry myself, I’d probably feel threatend by planning guidelines. However I think it’s pretty despicable to use false and unfounded images of disabled people being forced to live apart from their relatives and farmers’ children being driven away from the land to promote an environmentally damaging industry.

@JPD wrote:

Do we not have enough of them meddling Brussells bureaucrats as it is. Why should we listen to them that has already concreted all over their own places?

Apart from the fact that we have no choice but to?

Overall , this policy will only work if the granting of planning permision is removed from local authorities’ remit. I remember being told by the Director of the General Council of County Councils (the County Councils’ lobby group) that at one of his first official engagements in that role, he was taking to a newly elected rural councillor, who told him that his primary objective as a councillor was “to increase the hope value of land”. Say no more.

If this policy was enforced correctly……Then architects should be overjoyed with a policy such as this…….essentially it gives the space for total freedom of design ……you could imagine Ireland becoming a world centre for experimental architecture ……..

Sorry was dreaming for a moment …..the above will not happen unfortunatley ….I fear quiet the opposite in fact………but could Roche at least in return for this farce get some other leglisation passed that might ensure that design is given a priority ….

if there was a proper design comission formed to oversee building in the countryside …..if the title of architect was recognised officially………..if we had a real national spatial strategy ………..if planners were given design training and each authority had its own design department …….

there are lots and lots of good and better ideas out there about how and where to build ………..we should be providing examples of quality alternatives to one -off housing……….why would you want to live in an new developer designed estate when you can build in the countryside ……….

If we had a europan site ……it might be a start ………

http://www.europan-europe.com/e8_gb/sites/sites_map.php

I cannot help thinking of Germany in 2003 when we visited the in-laws in a village outside a satellite town (Zirndorf) of Nuremberg….. it was so neatly done, despite most of the houses being less that 30 years old, that it felt like a traditional village without being traditional houses – and there was no “leakage” of the town or village into the surrounding landscape, I walked between them (20 minute walk) and one ended, there was farming lanbd, and the next one started. In Ireland, it would have been bungalows all the way between them

And also would have taken you 2 hours to walk from one to the other

If you listen to the pat kenny show ….from yesterday……….bizarre ……..the article before Roche was on speaks about how the numbers of ‘ramblers’ people who come to Ireland to enjoy hill walking etc. as tourists has declined dramatically over the last 5 years………..then the speak about the new leglisation ………..and the destruction of the countryside ….somehow they fail completely to draw a link between the two……

There is nothing with people from rural areas building houses in rural areas, how can measures that help rural people be bad or would you want them all driven into cities?

The term cities is so often used in this debate.
There are alternative settlement patterns you know 🙂

Yes DaM, had to laugh at the lack of connection between the issue of one-off dveleopment and rural walking.
One would wonder though if many tourists find it a charming feature of Ireland to have the landscape dotted with houses – ‘the lights of the parish sparkling in the hills’…
Itr is ironic that the term parish is often used when often there’s not a church to be had for miles.

Have to ask again though – is the issue of sustainablity regarding car-dependancy a void one?
No matter what way you look at it, the oil’s going to go inside 50 years at best, with prices soaring in the interim.
It is often noted with the one-off issue that the long-term is not considered. Well if one does consider the long-term, alternative sustainable energy forms will have have to been developed by then; all our one-offers could be sailing around in their wind generated-electricity powered cars…
Likewise septic tank technology will have moved on, or rather the technologies that other EU states have will finally have been enforced over here.

Is this not an issue of traffic generation, cost of supplying services, and aesthetics, rather than an environmental one?
Apologies if that sounds naive, but I just think we need to look in the long term on all fronts.

Amen to that, it frightens me that in 30 years I will be relying on an economy with the least sustainable development pattern in the EU to provide at least part of my pension. All the emotional b*llshite in the world is not going to make the future cost of this go away. Whilst this may swell the coffers of local authorities for a few years via development levies of 10,000 a unit it is going to result in much higher local authority overheads into perpetuity.

The definition of which according to a Lease I once read is: Perpetuity is defined as being ‘That day when the last surviving descendent of the late President of Ireland Eamon De Valera passes away.’

I noted Eamon Gilmores point that local authority utility inflation has run at 16 times the rate of CSO inflation over the past 5 years. This is a disgrace.

Hi Thomond Park,

Off the point, but I’d just like to correct you about “perpetuity”.
What you are referring to is called the “Rule against Perpetuities”, a rule which applies to gifts in wills to prevent them from being handed out at ridiculously far away times in the future – e.g. I give it to the first man to fly to the other side of the galaxy. Originally it was designed so a man who didn’t like his son giving his property to his grandson – even if that grandson wasn’t born. Thus one had to specify that the gift was being given to someone born within 21 years (the age of majority) of the death of someone – (i.e. the son) plus 9 months for the gestation. The idea being that a grandson is going to become 21 at a maximum time of 21 years and 9 months after the death of the son. Lawyers started to get clever with all that and decided that it need not be the son whose lifespan was measured against – but they did need someone famous, so that people would actually know who. In England it became “the death of the last currently living issue of the King”. If one didn’t use such rules, then the gift is void and goes back to the will, to follow rules on intestacy/remainder etc.

Thats interesting about the wills but back to the issue, none of you have proven why rural paople shouldn’t be allowed build houses in rural areas. All you Dublin 4 types keep saying is they look ugly to your vision of the Countryside and that bins can be collected cheaper from the Streets of Dublin 4. As for roads have any of you left the main roads in some Counties? You could dissapear into some of the craters I have seen.

all our one-offers could be sailing around in their wind generated-electricity powered cars…

You mean the wind turbines that the same one-offers will refuse to have in their neighbourhood because it will spoil the view 🙁
Culchies want it every way, They want one off houses with the same level of service provision as a city and they want someone else to pay for it. Doesn’t work that way lads and lassies. In the short term, you may get away with it, long term, urban dwellers will revolt.

Actually we have enough houses. Firstly a high proportion of the housing stock is second homes (holiday etc.) Secondly they are in the wrong place. The issue here is not the production of houses but why they are separated from work. The problem arises when you place considerable distances between the two. If you want the “garden city” ideal of suburbia (for bringing up children in a better environment although the research indicates the truth is somewhat different) then you need a sophisticated suburban rail network, (eg SE England).

@Bob Dole wrote:

Hi Thomond Park,

Off the point, but I’d just like to correct you about “perpetuity”.
What you are referring to is called the “Rule against Perpetuities”, a rule which applies to gifts in wills to prevent them from being handed out at ridiculously far away times in the future – e.g. I give it to the first man to fly to the other side of the galaxy. Originally it was designed so a man who didn’t like his son giving his property to his grandson – even if that grandson wasn’t born. .

To be honest Bob I was talking about lease law and not wills, alienation is generally dealt with under different sections of a lease, it is a particular lease definition that surfaced in the late 1970’s was extremely common in both the months of June 1981 and November 1982, and then totally disappeared that I was referring to. Its construction was given to circumvent the statute of limitations insofar as was possible given that leases then were generally 35 years in duration and generally related to a particular class of tenant. Who interestingly enough is now back in the market although this market has now moved location or should I say locations in the 50+ quantity?

As for the arguments advanced by the pro rural brigade, it never ceases to amaze me how much denial this group practices, Ewan you have sumarised it far better than I ever could, certain minority interests in the Country want it every way; they want to decimate the towns so they can have urban blight that requires urban renewal incentives that can only be fixed with holiday homes/section 23 apartments and then want to build large suburban style villas with the profits.

This strategy amounts to nothing other than a wealth transfer from urban dwellers to a very small bunch of people who heretofore have conned the media.

@JPD wrote:

Thats interesting about the wills but back to the issue, none of you have proven why rural paople shouldn’t be allowed build houses in rural areas. All you Dublin 4 types keep saying is they look ugly to your vision of the Countryside and that bins can be collected cheaper from the Streets of Dublin 4. As for roads have any of you left the main roads in some Counties? You could dissapear into some of the craters I have seen.

How about living in a village rather than open countryside? Is Ballydehob just that bit too urban?

One approach to one-off housing development would be to allow it but only on the basis that the owner paid the true increased costs for all services provided.

There is also an issue of fairness: if rural people should always be allowed to build in their areas then why not Dublin 4 people? Most young people from the area of Dublin I grew up in can’t afford to live there and have moved out to places like Lucan. Shouldn’t they be allowed to build a house with more storeys and a smaller garden on their parents’ suburban plot? I think they should, but planning rules state that this type of development would not be in keeping with the scale and form of the rows of stumpy bungalows built there in the 60’s.

I’m not so sure if fairness comes into it, I think all of this comes down to proper planning and sustainable development in each individual case. Planners are not family judges making decisions on the basis of being equitable, they are in fact practictioners of a technical profession that aims to advise on the suitability of a given plot of land to absorb a particular development in the same way that structural engineers advise on load bearing capacity.

You are right on the issue of Dublin 4 bungalows as often not being suitable locations the development of a second family house, however every once in a while someone acquires five or six of them and is able to carry out a development for a higher number of units, which is fine because they have good public transport, water, waste water, existing waste services, telecoms, esb etc. All of which cost money not just to put in but to service particularly when storms hit

Do we not have enough of them meddling Brussells bureaucrats as it is. Why should we listen to them that has already concreted all over their own places?

Quaint green little Ireland won’t put food on the table.

JDP do you think that this legislation is going to prevent Ireland from becoming concreted over?

You keep speaking as if the only alternative to rural housing is living in cities ?

There are thousands of small towns across Ireland that can accommodate this type of growth and the social and cultural advantages of living in towns proximity to neighbours, schools and services and transport far outweigh the benifits of car dependant sub-suburbanisation of rural Ireland.

I do agree however that people at the moment will want to build in the countryside and should not be ‘forced’ into towns and cities ….at the moment there are no real alternatives……….If proper neighbourhoods are built in these towns rather than developer estates then they should have the power to attract people.

If we take the example of the Fingal County Offices (not sure if it was the first) as a piece of architecture that started a wave of competitions and commissions for new county offices around the country. People saw the benifits of good design.

We need to take this example and apply it in the design of a new neighbouroods or a complete new town/city then people can see the benifits of such, and it may just rescue rural ireland. Is any local authority or planning department in Ireland willing to do such a thing…..ie create an urban design (rather than a 5 year development plan) for its area looking foward to 2030 or 2050 then bring the developers in as partners in the realisation of this urban plan.

This is the only way to realise sustainable urban development and provide a real alternative to one off housing.

none of you have proven why rural paople shouldn’t be allowed build houses in rural areas. All you Dublin 4 types…

Could you stop trying to argue using stereotypes please? My background is not Dublin 4 – it’s more like that of the author of this piece. That piece for me “proves” why ribbon development shouldn’t be allowed, whether by rural people, urban people, villagers or holiday home owners. This piece also demolishes your attempt to present this as an issue of rural people being “downpressed by the man” as the author is definitely NOT a “Dublin 4 type”.

The reality of the situation is revealed here:

The rationale is here:
http://www.mattosullivan.com/ought/ought.htm

The product is here:
http://www.mattosullivan.com/ought/osites.htm

I almost left out the product in transit

http://www.mattosullivan.com/ought/oconsprop.htm

Shiver…

But an arguement that is also put across is that if people do move into villages and small towns, all they’ll be living in is suburban estates tacked onto the side of them – perhaps not as alienated as the vast estates we see at the moment, but still harshly urban (for people who want to live with even a degree of rural ambience), poorly designed and developer driven…

@DaM wrote:

……..I do agree however that people at the moment will want to build in the countryside and should not be ‘forced’ into towns and cities ….at the moment there are no real alternatives……….If proper neighbourhoods are built in these towns rather than developer estates then they should have the power to attract people. ……..

This is where the anti Rural development groups fail. From a rural dwellers viewpoint, the only available alternative to living in the country is a 1000sq.ft. “Townhouse” amongst a jungle of 400 identical “townhouses”.
To encourage people into villages & towns something more than the current model of the housing estate is required – and until a working model is in place the pro rural development people will remain just that.

how many people have actually read the publication? It obviously hasn’t reached Limerick anyway….

Would answer a lot of the sensationalist statements.

Disabled application refusal: Meath – in the last 6 months.

@Rockflanders wrote:

how many people have actually read the publication? It obviously hasn’t reached Limerick anyway….

Would answer a lot of the sensationalist statements.

Disabled application refusal: Meath – in the last 6 months.

I have read it and believe me there are sections of it that are absolutely dreadful, it is the greatest attempt to return to the pre-63 situation yet by any past or present Fianna Fail administration. It is also a total botch job on their part as lay man to the built environment Roche allowed more than a few clauses through that will come back to haunt the bungalow brigade, in fact despite the political intention and sales speil it appears that it will actually be harder to build in rural locations with some of the clauses that have been inserted. As someone else pointed out planners are technical professionals not social workers and they do generally follow the regulations quite closely in making determinations.

God help Ireland if Dick Roche knew anything about the built environment

Planners may be technical but it is up to politicians to give the people what they want once they pay their taxes like most people do and you do expect something in return for your taxes don’t you? Just like all the facilities you describe in the heart of Dublin 4, why shouldn’t country people have the right to a home escpecially when they even provide their own transport, water through group water schemes that they pay for and didn’t you know rural customers of the ESB pay more than the people in the cities.

Fair enough JDP people have the right to expect all of the above, a House (even though Ireland is one of the few countries that does not have this right enshrined in its constitution) water, and electricity.

However it is now 2005 and you would expect that standards might strech be a little further than the basics. I am talking about the social and cultural benifits associated with urban living. A choice of schools, librarys, museums, civic spaces that act as meeting points and centre of the community eg markets, event spaces, shopping, entertainment and leisure facilities such as cinemas and good year round sports facilities. Social spaces bars nightclubs, performance arts venues and a choice of restaurants. The choice to walk, cycle or drive or use public transport to the above and to your workplace so they are accessible to all. Daycare facilities for your children, playgrounds and parks, easy access to healthcare facilities and a university or IT …..start-up buisness spaces ……..a small town will not be able to provide all of the above but it should provide some and a good transport link to the rest.

When towns and cities start to provide the above in a coherent and civic manner then peoples perceptions about urban life will soon start to change.

You would think that Ireland as a country that has developed so late that we would look to the mistakes of others and try a different approach ……..however we seem to be making a real mess of it all by ourselves.

@DaM wrote:

Fair enough JDP people have the right to expect all of the above, a House (even though Ireland is one of the few countries that does not have this right enshrined in its constitution) water, and electricity.

However it is now 2005 and you would expect that standards might strech be a little further than the basics. .

Dam I agree with the spirit and broad thrust of your very well made points but in regard to the basics of basic homes for the disspossessed,you must look at the average size of these applications. Typically they range between 180-650 sq m with the average proposal being 240 sq m with a seperate garage of 65 sq m with additional loft space.

@DaM wrote:

I am talking about the social and cultural benifits associated with urban living. A choice of schools, librarys, museums, civic spaces that act as meeting points and centre of the community eg markets, event spaces, shopping, entertainment and leisure facilities such as cinemas and good year round sports facilities. Social spaces bars nightclubs, performance arts venues and a choice of restaurants. The choice to walk, cycle or drive or use public transport to the above and to your workplace so they are accessible to all. Daycare facilities for your children, playgrounds and parks, easy access to healthcare facilities and a university or IT …..start-up buisness spaces ……..a small town will not be able to provide all of the above but it should provide some and a good transport link to the rest. .

I totally agree there is an immense loss of quality of life by cutting yourself off from much of the social progress delivered over the past 50 years.

@DaM wrote:

When towns and cities start to provide the above in a coherent and civic manner then peoples perceptions about urban life will soon start to change.

You would think that Ireland as a country that has developed so late that we would look to the mistakes of others and try a different approach ……..however we seem to be making a real mess of it all by ourselves.

Until the water quality fines kick in, it is like the person who buys an apartment and then realises that they have a service charge to pay, the same will apply to deficient septic tanks except the fines will be 10,000 plus per breach at the minimum. Lough Corrib is in crisis with urban generated run off and these guidelines will only excerbate the problem, not to mention the Headford Road Roundabout.

@Thomond Park wrote:

Dam I agree with the spirit and broad thrust of your very well made points but in regard to the basics of basic homes for the disspossessed,you must look at the average size of these applications. Typically they range between 180-650 sq m with the average proposal being 240 sq m with a seperate garage of 65 sq m with additional loft space.

I totally agree there is an immense loss of quality of life by cutting yourself off from much of the social progress delivered over the past 50 years.

Until the water quality fines kick in, it is like the person who buys an apartment and then realises that they have a service charge to pay, the same will apply to deficient septic tanks except the fines will be 10,000 plus per breach at the minimum. Lough Corrib is in crisis with urban generated run off and these guidelines will only excerbate the problem, not to mention the Headford Road Roundabout.

It seems that you city folks do not understand rural life, all that people want is a job, a family and a house. There is little demand for complicated facilities. I don’t get the constant attacks on water as ALL THESE HOUSES HAVE SEPTIC TANKS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COUNCILS. I think it is just begrugery that some people have to pay less for a house than you do.

@JPD wrote:

It seems that you city folks do not understand rural life, all that people want is a job, a family and a house. There is little demand for complicated facilities. I don’t get the constant attacks on water as ALL THESE HOUSES HAVE SEPTIC TANKS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COUNCILS. I think it is just begrugery that some people have to pay less for a house than you do.

the fact that the council approves it doesn’t negate it’s possible negative impact on the environment.

As usual more scare tactics, it might be a problem, there might be extra traffic, there might be a few that are not pleasing to the eye. Are there any reasons not to build in the country that can actually be proven?

@JPD wrote:

As usual more scare tactics, it might be a problem,

It is a problem and the fact that urban renewal tax incentives are still in place in towns all across Ireland 10 years into the biggest economic boom ever to be seen proves this. One off housing is in direct competition with urban Ireland and constitutes unfair competition as the urban taxpayer is subsidising it through higher local authority costs on services and infrastructure.

@JPD wrote:

there might be extra traffic, ?

You can’t walk 3 miles to the town every time you want something and you certainly can’t walk 30 miles to work and another 30 back after work.

@JPD wrote:

there might be a few that are not pleasing to the eye. ?

60% of the housing in the West of Ireland are one-offs (DoHLG annual housing statistics 2004) of which less than 5% are designed by a fully accredited architect, some of these 500 sq m + houses have the lowest design quality in the OECD.

@JPD wrote:

Are there any reasons not to build in the country that can actually be proven?

All of the above and the decline in tourist visitor numbers, UK down, France Down, Germany Down, Italy Down

Any more questions?

Dock Roche will be on the Political Partytommorow or today Sunday at 430 to defend his guidelines he will be faced by a well known environmental broadcaster who has as yet not made any comment. I am very interested to see what she has to say. 🙂

@Published SBP DR Edward Walsh wrote:

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=4051-qqqx=1.asp

Vision needed now to develop West

17 April 2005 By Dr Edward Walsh
Despite the bad press Limerick has received recently, its people have come up with initiatives that have proven to be of profound national importance.

In 1959, Brendan O’Regan convinced Sean Lemass to define a special tax-free zone at Shannon where concepts to attract overseas investment could be tested. The resultant pro-enterprise policies formed the foundation upon which Ireland’s current economic success is based.

The two remarkable O’Malley ministers, Donagh and Des, were similarly driven and took unexpected initiatives that profoundly reshaped Irish education and politics.

Donagh, without doubt the most flamboyant minister who ever entered Leinster House, surprised his departmental officials in education and astonished his cabinet colleagues when he went public without their knowledge or approval and announced free secondary education, as well as the school-bus infrastructure to support it.

If that were not enough, he then went on to plan and introduce the regional technical college system.

Unlike ministers before or after him, he cut through the waffle and procrastination of the Department of Education.

Without his panache and courage, years of reviews and consultations would have rolled by and Ireland would have failed to provide the skilled workforce required to implement the emerging new industrialisation policies.

In 1968, Donagh died in his prime in the middle of an election campaign, but he had already outlined his thoughts on a new kind of university for Limerick.

The NIHE, which evolved into the University of Limerick, disrupted Ireland’s cosy university system from the outset.

When it opened in 1972 – despite derision from many in the Irish academic community – it introduced modular degrees, semesters, continuous assessment, inter-disciplinary study and work placement.

It also contributed to the academic philosophy that insisted universities could be excellent while also being relevant to the development needs of the community.

This radical initiative was the bait that attracted Ireland’s first silicon-chip manufacturer, Analog Devices, to Limerick.

Degree programmes were adjusted to meet its needs, and the first graduates formed its core staff.

Analog Devices was Ireland’s first truly high-tech venture. Its resounding success gave convincing evidence of Ireland’s capabilities and gave confidence to an increasing stream of advanced manufacturing companies and later, global leaders such as Intel, Microsoft and Dell.

The academics in Limerick built bridges to the enterprise community and believed that an important part of their mission was to stimulate Ireland’s economic and social development.

In partnership with Shannon Development and with help from Denmark and the US, Ireland’s first innovation centre and science park, now the National Technological Park, were built as an extension of the Limerick campus.

But all of this innovation is in the past and the old industrial policies that built Ireland’s current prosperity and technological know-how can not be relied upon to sustain us in the decades ahead. Things are changing as the knowledge-driven economy takes hold.

Already regional centres are alarmed at the rate at which long-established, but labour-intensive manufacturing enterprise is closing up and moving abroad, unable to cope with Ireland’s labour costs and burdensome emerging regulation.

There is also a recognition that, unlike the older-generation manufacturing plant that could locate almost anywhere in Ireland, most new knowledge-intensive enterprises seek the infrastructure of a large city.

It tends to gravitate to centres of scale that can offer sophisticated legal and financial services, a range of universities, advanced research laboratories, essential telecommunications and the essential range of air services.

Ireland’s regional cities are small when compared with Dublin and have difficulty in competing to attract the most sophisticated knowledge-driven enterprise.

Awareness is growing in the Limerick-Galway corridor that now is the time to do something about the problem.

The only realistic solution is a move towards inter-urban clustering in order to offer the scale neither city can in itself provide.

In Britain, the advantages of urban clustering has been recognised for some time.

A string of cities along the M62 in the north of England are now being brought together to form the Northern Way in order to compete with London as a major northern counterpole.

The cities stretch from coast to coast, from Liverpool to Hull, and have been interlinked with a backbone of sophisticated communications, upgraded motorways and a high-speed rail network, to coalesce into a megalopolis of 15 million people.

Quality of life is given focus.

Infrastructure, education, health and cultural amenities are being upgraded in a planned way, so that as an interlinked group they can compete with London as they have failed to do individually.

The prospect of urban clustering in Ireland and creating a counterpole to Dublin appears to be an option whose time has come.

Already the private sector has led the way and 270 high-tech enterprises along the Galway, Ennis, Shannon, Limerick corridor have come together to collaborate and establish the Atlantic technology corridor.

The Atlantic corridor concept can be built upon to provide Ireland with a vision that will be strong enough to capture the imagination and make things of great consequence happen.

It will need the kind of commitment from government provided by Lemass and his colleagues 45 years ago, when he courageously drew a line around a tract of land to form the Shannon Zone, introduced legislation and permitted those within it to blitz ahead.

It is encouraging that government is so strongly committed to correcting Ireland’s regional imbalance.

Having addressed general regional growth issues through the spatial strategy and other initiatives, it is clear that a focal-point of national significant is now required to catch the imagination, maintain momentum and make significant things happen.

Plans for the development of the Galway-Limerick corridor offer the prospect of an initiative with focus and panache that is potentially as exciting and challenging for Ireland as the multi-media super corridor is for Malaysia or the Northern Way is for Britain.

But if the project is to succeed it requires the wholehearted commitment of government in partnership with the two key cities.

It must have scale and intensity and it must be planned to the best international standards.

The goal should be the creation of a counterpole of sufficient scale and sophistication that is as attractive to knowledge-driven enterprises, as Dublin is.

Also, it can be designed to offer a superb quality of life, something that’s not always possible in Dublin.

With planning norms to international standards, existing towns and villages within the corridor should expect to grow so that vernacular architecture and their fragile nature are respected.

Many new towns and villages should emerge along the corridor with stringent design criteria to ensure harmony with the Irish countryside.

A certain amount of one-off housing should be permitted provided that this is built discretely and concealed from the roadside behind newplantations of native Irish trees.

Ireland needs a pilot zone where planning concepts can be tested with the goal of creating conditions for living and working that are far superior to those evolving at random and now oozing from the outskirts of cities, towns and villages.

At this juncture in its physical development insipid Ireland needs a new national visionary undertaking of international scale and challenge, one that catches the national imagination and provide the kind of solutions for working and living that currently escape us.

The Atlantic corridor, approached in the right way, offers this prospect.

Dr Edward M Walsh is president emeritus, University of Limerick

It is amazing what a balanced approach can come up with especially from one who managed to stay within the University community

@Thomond Park wrote:

It is a problem and the fact that urban renewal tax incentives are still in place in towns all across Ireland 10 years into the biggest economic boom ever to be seen proves this. One off housing is in direct competition with urban Ireland and constitutes unfair competition as the urban taxpayer is subsidising it through higher local authority costs on services and infrastructure.

You can’t walk 3 miles to the town every time you want something and you certainly can’t walk 30 miles to work and another 30 back after work.

60% of the housing in the West of Ireland are one-offs (DoHLG annual housing statistics 2004) of which less than 5% are designed by a fully accredited architect, some of these 500 sq m + houses have the lowest design quality in the OECD.

All of the above and the decline in tourist visitor numbers, UK down, France Down, Germany Down, Italy Down

Any more questions?

Dock Roche will be on the Political Partytommorow or today Sunday at 430 to defend his guidelines he will be faced by a well known environmental broadcaster who has as yet not made any comment. I am very interested to see what she has to say. 🙂

Enough of your nonsense Thomond we can’t all live in a park; Dick Roche will set the record straight today on TV3 and will very clearly show why this is GOOD FOR IRELAND

Have your say http://www.rte.ie/comments/comments.html

Dick Roche was right this is for the good of Ireland and the woman couldn’t lay anything on him despite having the benefit of the presenter as well. The thing with the septic tanks is a myth

JPD I think you must have been watching a very different programme as Roche fully admitted that most septic tanks in Ireland are not functioning due to the use of domestic disinfectants, admitted that no inspections on septic tanks were being carried out and that water quality was in crisis for the past 15 years. He also stated on the record that water-quality would be solved as of the 22nd of this month which is a remark that he very well could regret.

The most telling remark by the Minister of the discussion was that these regulations were not an attempt to change the criteria for determining planning applications; they were simply aimed at giving clarity as to who is entitled to apply for planning permission in rural areas and to communicate this to practicing local authority planners.

Therefore these regulations merely constitute a charter as to who the planners will give pre-planning consultation to, so the situation is unchanged in that the planners must still determine every application on its compliance with the development plan. With both scenic landscapes listed in most plans and an outright ban on ribbon development it will be very easy to talk to a planner but virtually impossible to secure a rural planning permission unless you are a genuine farmer who’s son/daughter wants to build very close to the existing farmhouse and/or outbuildings.

I find this whole ‘who has a right to live on the land’ debate deeply unsavoury. How is it now that those who have a link to the land simply by Daddy being a farmer, yet they work in Intel and their wife in the local town, has a greater right to live in rural areas?
Every case should be judged on its own merits, with the single exception being for those who work the land, essentially those that need to be there. Otherwise every case should be considered individually.
If the current logic were to be extended to urban areas, prices for housing in the capital would fall through the floor as those who weren’t from Dublin could not buy a house there.

As for the ‘debate’ this afternoon – what a pity it got bogged down (excuse the pun) in an arguement about putting Domestos down the pan. Even so, this raises a fundamental question: if the efficent septic tank technology in use elsewhere in Europe was to be used here, along with inspections and ‘desludging’ legislation etc – what’s AT’s position then on one-off housing?

It’s all very well to talk about the current state of affairs, and yes of course they should be concerned about the onslaught of problems that current one-off building practice brings, but in an ideal world of wastewater treatment what then about one-off housing?

It is an important point considering the majority of the public debate on the issue revolves around this very point, even if it doesn’t in policy documents – but on the public level it is the central hinge of the whole issue.
If one applies the ideals of wastwater treatment to every house built, the public face, I emphasise the public face of AT’s debate fall flat on its face.

Graham on a short show like the Political Party there is a slot of less than 10 minutes and while facing someone as verbose as Dick Roche a position is always going to become bogged down as he never lets anyone speak un-interupted and he takes 30-40 seconds to get out what should be a 5 second reply.

Getting the absolute ban on ribbon development and protecting scenic areas eliminated 95% of one off housing applications because very few of the sites where permissions were being granted are large enough to accomodate a dwelling that has a spatial relationship to another dwelling whilst being a sufficient distance from the road not to constitute ribbon development.

The An Taisce argument as given from various media reports centres on Four Strands:

1. Sustainability which through the absolute ban on ribbon development eliminates most one-off developments that are car dependent as any applicant would require a regularly shaped site of at least 10 acres to not constitute ribbon development.

2. Preservation of scenic locations where permissions are to be granted only in very exceptional cases, so that point in the AT submission was taken on board although an outright ban would have been better, particularly in sensitive coastal and upland areas.

3. Efficiency of local government, this point is one that is not just made by AT but was very well quantified by Eamon Gilmore when he displayed that local charges have increased by 16 times the rate of inflation since 2000. If the ESB is ever privatised I can see rural dwellers requiring insurance on the last mile of cable.

4. Water quality, I don’t think the fact that 28% of wells in Ireland being contaminated by the run-off from septic tanks can be ignored, would this be tolerated anywhere else? Roche was nailed here and his evasive style cannot get him away from the fact that this is a major problem as experienced not just by rural dwellers but also by many residents in Carlow Town who are currently boiling water to make it safe.

Agreed that those are the four tenets of AT’s policy – although the first one also encompassing the much broader issue of settlement patterns etc.
It is unfortunate that the full side of the story is not delivered on the few brief occasions that AT have the opportunity to air their views – notably the three other issues other than the water quality aspect.

Roche is indeed verbose, grandiloquent I’d say :), and he certainly has honed the art of the flowery time-wasting introduction down to a tee (though I must admit to liking him on a personal level). But all the more reason for his opposing counterparts to be concise and direct in their responses, or more to the point, in the adgendas they set for him to respond to.
That is, the three/four other equally important parts of the debate that don’t get the coverage they deserve.

Eanna Ní Lamhna did well though considering the short time available – her popularity with housewives cannot be underestimated in worth 🙂

@Graham Hickey wrote:

grandiloquent

Only about Tayto wrappers and septic tanks 😀

You are right it would be better if you could get all four accross but as you have descibed the obstacle in one word above it is agreed.

The good thing is that Minister Roche is on record stating that the regulations are only a guideline as to who can apply, I doubt AT have much argument with his assertion that the regulations will have no impact on the decision making process. So as it doesn’t affect their work in terms of still commenting on planning applications Eanna did very well to get Minister Roche to accept that existing septic tanks are doing damage and that nothing is currently being done about it beyond a circular letter.

Minister Roche has also confirmed that ribbon development is completely banned at the behest of the NRA and AT, also that scenic areas are to be preserved at determination of applications. Eanna also got a commitment that the paper on water quality would be ready for the EU commision in less than a week.

I think all in all she got a lot more by concentrating on the one outstanding issue of water quality and getting commitments as opposed to touching on themes that can be dealt with in written submissions. 😀

So what you are saying is that it will be easier to apply but more difficult to get permission. I am not sure if I believe that but if fewer planning permissions are given in rural areas there will be hell to pay for Fianna Fail. I can see a few more Marian Harkins springing up right along the west.

@bloke wrote:

This is where the anti Rural development groups fail….
To encourage people into villages & towns something more than the current model of the housing estate is required – and until a working model is in place the pro rural development people will remain just that.

This is where the pro-Bungalow groups fail; – they describe people who would like to see clustered rural housing, good design and rural public transport as “anti Rural Development”.

@Graham Hickey wrote:

If the current logic were to be extended to urban areas, prices for housing in the capital would fall through the floor as those who weren’t from Dublin could not buy a house there.

About time. Dublin for Dubliners only. 😀

Closer to Boston than Berlin. Coming soon the great suburban expansion west with a new stadium surrounded by car parking (abbotstown), strip malls and outer suburban networks. The spatial strategy is completely in tatters. Living next to your family is one ting but if you are not in a position to contribute to the local economy and cultural life of that environment (because you are absent) then there is not much point. After the Gold rush hundreds of towns were abandoned. The reason why the US has such a responsive economy is due to the mobility of the workforce that follow the opportunities rather than stay regardless in the place they were born and raised. The desire for this mobility and responsiveness runs counter to the crossroads model that we think will emerge as a consequence of the pollination of the countryside with bungalows.

@JPD wrote:

As usual more scare tactics, it might be a problem, there might be extra traffic, there might be a few that are not pleasing to the eye. Are there any reasons not to build in the country that can actually be proven?

They don’t attract development, it’s the towns with a population base that attract business etc and then all the countryside feeds off this, they contribute nothing.
Does that answer it simply enough??
You’re starting to annoy me, “all you D4 people” blah blah blah
@JPD wrote:

It seems that you city folks do not understand rural life, all that people want is a job, a family and a house. There is little demand for complicated facilities. I don’t get the constant attacks on water as ALL THESE HOUSES HAVE SEPTIC TANKS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE COUNTY COUNCILS. I think it is just begrugery that some people have to pay less for a house than you do.

Sorry but i want alot more in life than a job and a house, don’t speak on my behalf as a “country person”, maybe you should check out what’s out there to be experienced.
@JPD wrote:

All you Dublin 4 types keep saying is they look ugly to your vision of the Countryside and that bins can be collected cheaper from the Streets of Dublin 4. As for roads have any of you left the main roads in some Counties? You could dissapear into some of the craters I have seen.

What’s making these craters????, trucks trundelling up and down the road constantly spreading debris and muck everywhere (there’s no point in wainting walls anymore) coming to and fro the newest disgusting tasteless mansion being thrown up by some yahoo with more money than taste!!!!,
overuse from every car in a 10 mile area driving into town where threre job is!!!
You can’t walk or cycle in some places now, i felt safer cycling around dublin city centre when i lived there, eejits tearing around country roads.
Don’t you realise the alternatives, even look to original settlement patterns, ringforts etc led on to clochans, not dispersed living, if designed properly rural living could be so much more pleasent if you could cluster houses tastefully, services could be provided cheaper and you would have all the benefits of having close neighbours while also having privacy if designed properly (ie not a housing estate and not 5 mansions with 1 acre lawns stapled together)
I think the answers are in improving the standards of housing developments in villages, steering away from housing estates towards more individual and intesting buildings with character, whatever happened to side streets and alleyways, and also encouraging new forms and models of clochans in the countryside, imaginatively designed to provide people with a great quality of life that doesn’t put stress on our resources and that could be added onto with new building. Maybe councils should look into this and team up with architects planners etc and develop modern models of living around older concepts.

Just checked on google there, by clochan i mean a traditional gathering of houses, farmhouses in the past, not a circular dry stone house.

Out of interest, JPD, have you ever seen other patterns of rural development, for example in the purely agricultural areas of France? I mention France because it’s probably the most pro-rural country in Europe and they fiercely promote rural development. Funnily enough, they don’t have endless bungalows and mock-georgian mansions dotted along every roadside miles from any village. Nearly all development happens in towns, villages and hamlets.

I’d doubt you’d be interested in anything like that though. I get the impression that promoting the interests of rural Ireland and trying to work out how to improve the country comes second in your list of interests compared to whipping yourself into a lather of indignation at your imagined oppression of “country people” by “Dublin 4 types”.

As ever, David McWilliams has hit the nail on the head (and not whilst constructing a one off house 😀 )
http://www.thepost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=DAVID%20McWilliams-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqid=4057-qqqx=1.asp

Something humorous i noticed recently was a photo in a free local rag of the 10 pages advertising : 2 pages news variety shoved through the letterbox. The photo was in an article about illegal dumping, something which has to be tackled, but this particular photo was of a couch in a ditch of a forestry road, the caption read “not so suite for the tourists” geddit, baddum chhhh. What about the thousands of huge crass vulgar houses on every hilltop in the area, i’d imagine an illegally dumped couch pales in comparison.

Excellent article as ususal by McWilliams as posted by Ewan – this just about sums it up:

“Minister Dick Roche has been bullied and he has bowed to political pester power in the same way as a jaded mother buys peace at home with a Kit Kat, knowing well that the rapid ingestion of sugar will only lead to a short-term kick that will soon wear off.

The decision on one-off housing will cost us a fortune in the years ahead.”

Re: bloke

Sounds like we have another fin on the forum :rolleyes:

Devin,

The link you posted does not work.
I am just making observations from what I read and hear from various sources. I am by no means a subscriber to the commonly held view that An Taisce object blindly to any form of rural development, compliments to reading material and articles on this site and others. The neatly tailored (I would imagine) PR contained on the An Taisce website was not one of those sources. This posting on this very thread was.

@Thomond Park wrote:

……..The An Taisce argument as given from various media reports centres on Four Strands:

1. Sustainability which through the absolute ban on ribbon development eliminates most one-off developments that are car dependent as any applicant would require a regularly shaped site of at least 10 acres to not constitute ribbon development.

2. Preservation of scenic locations where permissions are to be granted only in very exceptional cases, so that point in the AT submission was taken on board although an outright ban would have been better, particularly in sensitive coastal and upland areas.

3. Efficiency of local government, this point is one that is not just made by AT but was very well quantified by Eamon Gilmore when he displayed that local charges have increased by 16 times the rate of inflation since 2000. If the ESB is ever privatised I can see rural dwellers requiring insurance on the last mile of cable.

4. Water quality, I don’t think the fact that 28% of wells in Ireland being contaminated by the run-off from septic tanks can be ignored, would this be tolerated anywhere else? Roche was nailed here and his evasive style cannot get him away from the fact that this is a major problem as experienced not just by rural dwellers but also by many residents in Carlow Town who are currently boiling water to make it safe.

Question

If cost is the issue when providing housing for rural settlers, why is it that many of these sites have state of the art vehicles, SUVs and the like outside the front door, often two or three deep?

Well their car is pretty crappy anyway 😀

That ‘planning’ case is just ghastly, not to mention the design of the structure.
How could that have possibly been let though any sort of planning system?! Has a qualified planner even looked at this case?!
No doubt there’s a string of them alongside it too…

B but but the dormer windows are designed to mimic the local topography…..

Is that the westport – louisburgh road, shame on me for even slightly defending it, but it is a highly populated main road. Last time i ever defend something like that…. promise

“That is just shocking. Is there another developed county in the world that allows that?”

The USA.

A guy swore to me the other night that there is a house on the shores of Lough Swilly painted red, white and black and the Manchester United crest on the side and in the front yard a giant statue of Padre Pio in a glass case. The name of the house is “Nou Camp 98” and it is all lit up at night. Can anybody confirm this? I’d love to see a photo.

Somebody should start a Gallery of One-Off Rural Houses with the American Dream above in Louisburg in it.

Approaching Gweebarra Bridge (West Donegal), there is a model of the Statue of Liberty in a front garden, situated on a rock outcrop overlooking the bay! (have a photo at home, will post if I remember to)

hi devin, did you miss me sweety!
while obviously it is a good thing that people from a place in ireland with land can build their house on their land without the unnecessary heartache the previous system employed i do have reservations as to the design quality of any proposals. are the planners forced to grant permission even if the design is crap? i haven’t being keeping tabs on it and didn’t read all this thread.
must say it’s nice to get something to stop the tree hugger getting their way all the time.this is necessary for the countryside wether people from urban areas ie dubh linn can accept it or not!

heres another view 😉

that is just mad

http://www.mayonews.ie/current/county.tmpl$showpage?value1=33229077752570

De Facto – Mayo News, Wednesday April 20, 2005
Planning a withdrawal

Why did Westport Town Council allow a respected developer to submit a major planning application that, according to Westport Civic Trust, contravenes the Westport Town Development Plan 2003, Departmental Residential Density-Guidelines and Part 5, Planning and Development Act 2000? Both the council and the developer and their respective advisors held a series of pre-planning meetings, yet the application has now been withdrawn. The application refers to a major development at Cloonmonad (alongside the Railway Line Walk) of over 100 houses.
Westport Civic Trust (WCT) has done the people of the town a great favour with their submission, prepared by Gerrard+Associates. (Declaration of interest – I am a founder member of WCT and only examined the submission after it was submitted to the council.) The objection was brave as people call for more houses in Westport. It raised serious issues about the pre-planning process. Six other submissions were made.

Planning history

The planning application was received and validated by Westport Town Council on March 4th. It was not available to the public until March 11th – reducing the time-span for submissions by 20%. Requests by WCT for the file were denied during that first week. A WCT member walked the site with a senior council official, finding only one of the three site notices. At one stage the official ‘erected’ one of the (fallen) notices.

In a letter dated April 7th the developer notified the council that the application was being withdrawn. The council received the letter on the same day. On the same day letters were sent to the seven parties who had made submissions advising them that the application had been withdrawn.

People who asked to see the file last week in the council offices were informed that the application had been withdrawn. The implication was that this did not give people the right to view the file. Some of us insisted, regardless. Pre-planning details were presented on one A4 page (with €1 charge for a copy!) A pre-planning file with details of several meetings was not made available.

The Civic Trust submission highlighted four main points:

1. Westport Development Plan

The submission showed that there was only temporary access to the site across the Railway Line Walk, which is a public amenity.

“The proposal does not minimise the potential growth in transport demand, it does not promote and facilitate cycling, walking and public transport. It does not provide viable alternatives to car based transport.”

Another objector stated that the density of the proposal was double what was proposed in the development plan (which allows for increased density in some cases). Concerns were also expressed under sustainability, waste disposal and design headings. A public park was included “in accordance with Westport Town Council’s masterplan for Cloonmonad, prepared by Mitchell+Associates.” This ‘masterplan’ has no legal standing, is not cited in the Development Plan, has not been put on public display and was not available for viewing to Gerrard+Associates. The council plans to build a new access road to the estate but nothing has been finalised. Why allow a developer to proceed with plans when the road details are not finalised.

2. Housing strategy 2001-2006

There is a county policy to develop 20% of residential zoned land for social and affordable housing under Part V of the Planning and Development Act, 2000 and to encourage integration of social and affordable housing within developments. The Act allows planning authorities to issue certificates exempting developments from the social housing requirements. No clearance certificate has been applied for.

There is no reference in the planning application as to how the housing strategy policy is to be complied with. It is a requirement of the Act to do so, and failure to comply renders the application invalid.

3. Environmental impacts

Neither a Heritage Plan nor a Biodiversity Plan (as required under the National Biodiversity Plan) is in place in Westport. No proper assessment of the wetlands of Cloonmonad, an urban greenway, which will be impacted by the proposed access to the development, has been made. Senior road engineer Paddy Mahon in his memo to the Manager dated 6th September 2001 stated: “With regard to the flora and fauna of the wetlands in the vicinity of the Railway Walk an Environmental Impact Assessment can be carried out. This assessment would identify the impact the proposed road and bridge would have on the environment generally, and would make recommendations on how to minimise any impact.” No EIS was carried out. Once this greenway is destroyed it cannot be reinstated.

4. New road

Town councillors passed plans (Part 10, newspaper notice, 4th July 2001) for a new 1 km road and a bridge over the Railway Walk to the development site. Upwards of 150 people made submissions on this proposal. Their concerns were neither considered nor acknowledged by Westport Town Council and became the subject of a complaint to the Ombudsman, who ruled against the council. Has this decision been brought to the attention of councillors in a public meeting yet?

The council’s consultants Mitchell+Associates commented on the Railway Walk in 2002: “The main visual impact on the walkway however, will be the insertion of an access road to the north of the alignment, which will service the still underdeveloped lands at Cloonmonad. The visual impact of the proposed road on the amenity of the walkway will be significant.”

The WCT submission also included details from a traffic study showing no local public transport services to the Cloonmonad/Quay area. “All this points to a need for a Greenway to include a cycle path and pedestrian walk along the Railway Walk as recognised by the Westport Town Development Plan 2003 … However this objective is in jeopardy if the Part 8 Road project is allowed to proceed as a service road for the subject site.”

Pre-planning is a disservice to any developer if the subsequent validated planning application contravenes the law. WCT highlighted serious flaws in pre-planning. The real victims are the people waiting for houses.

There’s a lot of giving out about one off housing, but I don’t think the alternative is much better. Having grown up in a small village in Kerry (population 300 a few years back), a number of estates (one with 70 houses) have sprung up creating an absolute blight on the landscape. I wonder/fear what it will look like in a few years time when the ‘newness’ is gone.

A point I’d appreciate some feedback on: What is it with everyone removing natural hedgerow (often with mature trees) and replacing it with ugly walls. Leaving the hedgerow, in most cases one would hardly notice the house therefore greatly reducing the eyesore factor. Your thoughts/

@flysrmd11 wrote:

A point I’d appreciate some feedback on: What is it with everyone removing natural hedgerow (often with mature trees) and replacing it with ugly walls. Leaving the hedgerow, in most cases one would hardly notice the house therefore greatly reducing the eyesore factor. Your thoughts/

Oh everyone’s got to have a 6 ft wall these days, with turrets if possible, it shows how important you are.

That is a bizarre situation you encountered in Westport Cute Panda, of all the areas in Ireland afflicted by bungalows Clew Bay from Loiusburgh to Newport must be the worst. Long before I became interested in planning I remember listening to relations in Westport talking about houses and unlike most other places in Ireland they weren’t talking about houses, they were talking about sites. ‘As rare as hens teeth’ was the expression used yet literally 1000’s of the vilest one-offs have been built in this area since, it would appear that if something was going to give it was some of the most scenic coastline in Europe.

@flysrmd11 wrote:

There’s a lot of giving out about one off housing, but I don’t think the alternative is much better. Having grown up in a small village in Kerry (population 300 a few years back), a number of estates (one with 70 houses) have sprung up creating an absolute blight on the landscape. I wonder/fear what it will look like in a few years time when the ‘newness’ is gone.

A point I’d appreciate some feedback on: What is it with everyone removing natural hedgerow (often with mature trees) and replacing it with ugly walls. Leaving the hedgerow, in most cases one would hardly notice the house therefore greatly reducing the eyesore factor. Your thoughts/

You are totally correct, give me a one-off anyday at least that way you can choose your neighbours

@JPD wrote:

You are totally correct, give me a one-off anyday at least that way you can choose your neighbours

And this is why the alternatives to housing estates needs to be explored rather than open up a free for all.

@Mob79 wrote:

And this is why the alternatives to housing estates needs to be explored rather than open up a free for all.

I agree that you can{t throw the baby out with the bath water just because suburban housing estates were so badly designed in years gone by. I think that some good work has already been done in relation to developing alternatives to the traditional 16 to the acre housing estate, places like Adamstown and Pelletstown are lightyears ahead of what starter homes delivered in years gone by. This section taken from the Adamstown Masterplan is the best alternative, as it delivers high urban design quality, medium to high density and every possible facility you could want outside a City Centre:

“Development Area 11 – Adamstown Station
77 Adamstown SDZ Planning Scheme South Dublin County Council September 2003
Development Area 11
Adamstown Station
• 475 – 550 Dwelling units
• Up to 37,500 sq. m. of non-residential development
• New District Centre core
• Railway Station – Transport Interchange”

Sorry I missed this;

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0422/planning.html

Planning board rules on Cork, Kerry appeals

22 April 2005 14:34
An Bord Pleanála has given its clearest indication yet as to how it will apply the imposition of Irish language conditions to the granting of planning permission for new housing developments in Gaeltacht areas.

Dealing with two planning appeals in counties Galway and Kerry, it has decided that the number of houses to be reserved for Irish speakers will be linked directly to the percentage of people living in the area who already speak Irish.

In Furbo, Co Galway, the board stated that 60% of occupants in the development needed to be either fluent or have a command of the Irish language.

Granting planning permission, three apartments and six houses will need to be occupied by Irish speakers.

In Ballyferriter, Co Kerry, the board stated that 75% of occupants in the development needed to be either fluent or have a command of the Irish language, meaning 12 houses are specified for Irish speakers in the planning permission.

The board ruled in both cases that the restriction on occupancy should remain in place for 15 years. Ends

I find the fifteen year occupancy rule very well considered

Yes – and the percentage-indexed occupancy an appropriate solution.

Look at this article plonked on a hill in Kilkenny:

Features including:

. Commanding views of scenic rural landscape – as long as I don’t have anything to do with it

. ‘Cathedral style’ ceiling to living room – well something has to make up for the exterior

. Easily accessible; Dublin 1 hour 40 minutes, Rosslare Harbour 1 hour, Waterford 40 minutes – handy commutes indeed

. Decking to the front – slash beach-hut

. 6 acres with excellent views – well at least there’s space to extend this squalid little property

. Electric Gates – all important living in a filed in the middle of nowhere

I posted a picture of the statue of liberty on this tread a while ago and had been meaning to photograph this fro a long time. This though as opposed to laughable is actually realy cool -pop art on the side of a shed just outside Ardara (Co.Donegal). I don’t know who did it but I must find out and buy him/mer a pint.

Upload Errors -sorry

Clare planners to amend rules for one-off houses
Archiseek / Ireland / News / 2006 / February 2
The Irish Times

Pressure from councillors to ease restrictions on building one-off homes in Co Clare has forced planners to agree to further amend the Clare County Development Plan. At a special council meeting yesterday, councillors called for further easing of restrictions. County manager Alec Fleming responded by saying he would draw up proposals to amend part of the council’s rules relating to allowing locals to build one-off homes. Councillors claimed current restrictions were too restrictive and prevented locals from building in their own areas.

http://www.irish-architecture.com/news/2006/000028.html

Has anyone got the full article?

@Thomond Park wrote:

Has anyone got the full article?

Here it is :-

Clare planners to amend rules for one-off houses
Gordon Deegan

Pressure from councillors to ease restrictions on building one-off homes in Co Clare has forced planners to agree to further amend the Clare County Development Plan.

At a special council meeting yesterday, councillors called for further easing of restrictions.

County manager Alec Fleming responded by saying he would draw up proposals to amend part of the council’s rules relating to allowing locals to build one-off homes.

Councillors claimed current restrictions were too restrictive and prevented locals from building in their own areas.

Councillors already moved in September to dismantle their “locals-only” policy when they unanimously passed two motions against the advice of management to amend the plan to make it easier for applicants to build one-off homes.

In the existing plan, adopted in February of last year, the council sought to control the proliferation of one-off homes in large areas of Clare by imposing a general ban on non-locals from building homes.

At the meeting, the council’s senior planner denied an arrangement between the planning department and a select group of architects.

Liam Conneally said: “There is no cosy relationship or cosy cartel with these architects. The Agents Liaison Group (ALG) was introduced to improve lines of communication, but it will have to take a different format and be more representative of the agents operating in the county.”

In a letter, the architects said they “are totally frustrated by lack of consistency, poor management structure, lack of productive dialogue, poor communication and absence of a rational coherent, consistent and common sense approach to planning within the council”.

The group saw little point in holding any further meetings with the planning department “until there has been a significant and tangible overhaul of the present system, which, in our view, is clearly not working”.

Mr Fleming said the council’s director for planning, Bernadette Kinsella, would discuss the situation with the architects.

© The Irish Times

KB,

Thanks for posting this very interesting article it really does display the ‘megaphone diplomacy’ that seems to characterise many facets of the Irish planning system.

National Development Plan to be announced

23 January 2007 09:47
Details of the Government’s multi-billion euro National Development Plan will be announced this afternoon.

The plan, which is the largest to be proposed in the history of the State, details the projects on which the €180 billion will be spent.

The Minister for Finance, Brian Cowen, said that measures such as an annual reporting mechanism to the Oireachtas under the plan would be put in place to ensure the money was spent properly.

Advertisement

The money will be spent on infrastructure and social inclusion measures, as well as on education, and north/south co-operation over the next seven years.

Mr Cowen said the plan will be very ambitious and that it will be unlike any previous plans because the challenges facing the economy now are different.

He said that the country is going through an intensification of economic and social change and that there is no room for complacency.

Infrastructure bottlenecks need to be tackled and quality of life needs to be improved for everyone, he said.

Mr Cowen added that Ireland needs better transportation and more balanced regional development, and improved social cohesion measures.

The minister said that on a like-for-like basis the new plan will put about €2 billion per year more into the economy than an earlier version analysed by the Economic and Social Research Institute.

He said that the ‘ramp-up’ in capital spending involved in the plan would not be that great, and that spending on infrastructure would average about 5.5% of GNP, rather than the 4.9% set out for this year.

He also said that the infrastructure improvements in the plan were important necessary work that may not be achieved if the Government were to delay doing it.

The minister said that the country has experienced higher incomes and that public wealth in things like roads, schools and hospitals now had to be improved.

In Platform 11 they used to have a thread called ‘announcements watch’ which related to the same projects being launched as new and groundbreaking even though it was the fiftieth time that had been launched. This farcical rehash contains nothing new although my proposal does. I suggest 80 statutory holidays a year for all workers

National Development Plan – main points

January 23, 2007 15:18
Spending under the National Development Plan, details of which were announced today, is broken up into five categories.

Economic infrastructure
Under transport, €13.3 billion will be spent on national roads, and almost €13 billion on public transport, including measures already announced in Transport 21. The €8.5 billion energy component will include investments by ESB, Bord Gáis and EirGrid, as well as the East/West and North/South interconnectors.

In the environmental area, €4.75 billion is allocated to water services, with €270m for the purchase of climate change trading allowances.

There will be €435m for communications, including measures ‘to address market failures in the provision of broadband’.

€830m is allocated for the Government’s decentralisation programme up to 2011.

Enterprise, Science and Innovation

€6 billion will be invested in science, technology and innovation, mainly in research and development. Enterprise Ireland will receive €1.7 billion to invest in indigenous companies, while €1.6 billion will be aimed at attracting foreign direct investment.

€8 billion goes towards agriculture and food development, aimed at creating a ‘competitive, consumer-focused agri-food sector’. €800m is provided for tourism marketing, infrastructure and training.

Human Capital

€2.8 billion will be invested in training and skills development programmes, with another €4.9 billion for specific groups such as lone parents, people with disabilities and travellers. There is also €13 billion for third-level infrastructure and €5 billion for modernising first and second level schools.

Social infrastructure
The biggest portion goes to housing, with €21 billion for social, affordable and voluntary housing.

This will allow for the provision of 60,000 new local authority houses over the period of the plan as well as another 17,000 affordable homes.

The remainder goes to health, prisons and sport – including the Lansdowne Road stadium redevelopment.

Social inclusion
€12 billion goes to a children’s programme, which includes childcare services, recreational facilities and special needs education. There will be almost €10 billion aimed at helping older people to live independently at home and €19 billion for programmes for people with disabilities.

Regional

On regional development, the Government is to set up a €300m fund to help develop local infrastructure in the ‘gateway’ centres identified in the National Spatial Strategy. The fund is designed to attract matching funding from public or private sources

Am I missing something or have development plans changed from development of national infrastructure to listing all likely government spending for as long a period as is possible to deliver the largest figure possible.

Since when has a FAS training course for upholsterers represented development? Or since when have affordable houses paid for by developers had anything to do with National Development of Infrastructure.