local council xenophobia finally tackled
- This topic has 41 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 2 months ago by
.
- Posts
1. The wording of most conditions has been not to sell or otherwise dispose of; the renting of a property is to otherwise dispose of as it prevents the owner having exclusive possession. The only justificastion for local need is exclusive possession or at least exclusive possession subject to say renting a room to help with the mortgage. The site farming industry is in full swing and Dick’s guidelines faciltated it greatly.
2. When in England or wherever these people provided a roof for themselves what is wrong with them providing a house for themselves in the same way as all other urban dwellers. If they are taking on a farm that is different and in any event they could apply under the agricultural worker provisions of the development plan should that be the case. I have been based in London for most of the year for the past 18 months; does that give me a right to ignore the fact that I grew up in Galway and Dublin cities unlike those who stayed around and become assume a London rural background?
3. That is not true
4. The guidelines reversed almost all the environmental provisions of the previous guidelines and for the first time made it acceptable to build in SACs they were regressive in the extreme from an environmental viewpoint and not one environmental, nature or planning organisation or body was anything other than scathing on them.
3.
1. the councils do not have the man power to enforce conditions of planning pertaining to the occupancy of dwellings… they dont even have the man-power to enforce that buildings are build in compliance with planning……. that condition, like the landscaping condition usually included, are soley reliant on the client to enact,……
2. the guidelines make provisions for returning immigrants….. thats fine IMHO so we will agree to disagree here
3. it is true …..
http://kilkennycoco.kilkenny.ie/resources/Rural%20Settlement%20Area%20Map%20-%20Var.%20No.%208.pdf
thats the kilkenny maphttp://www.laois.ie/media/Media,618,en.pdf
thats the laois maphttp://ww2.offaly.ie/yourcouncil/offalycountycouncil/services/planning/Co%20Dev%20Plan%202003-09/Maps%20Vol%201/Maps%20Volume%201.pdf
and if you willing to check this….. map 11 is the offaly one…4. it only made it acceptable to build in SAC with draconian restrictions… i know, ive been involved in planning applications in those areas….. at the end of the day, if the environmental factors are considered acceptable under EPA guidelines and requirements, then whats the problem from an environmental point of view???? its up to thecouncils to enforce these EPA guidleines to the highest degree…….. again, its not the guidleines that are at fault, its the councils enactment of them…..
So if the councils don’t have the power to enforce them why refer to them; it is clear that a carte blanche has been implemented by Dick and that an immediate ban on all one off dwellings needs to be effected pending proper regulation.
2. Or put another way anyone with a bit of Oirish in them can build anywhere once it isn’t in an urban area!!
3. I don’t accept that point; all the maps say is that certain areas face more pressure than others; it is not zoned resi as residential development land can accommodate planned schemes.
4. What level of regulation would you expect less than 1% of the country has a SAC designation much of it being under water. I regard anyone who applies to develop in SACs to have no scrupples. I have had client requests over the years that I have refused and even lost clients. To blame the councils for not implementing EPA guidelines is a cop out. No Dick guidelines no problem!!
@PVC King wrote:
. No Dick guidelines no problem!!
so you are a ‘blanket ban’ merchant then???
1. some councils have good building control systems set up, but they do not have the man power to check every condition of every planning application… they never will, and your suggested reaction to ban all one off houses clears up for me exactly what corner you are in……
2. that statement shows you have a marked mis-understanding of the guidelines
3.i never claimed these lands were zoned for residential developments… they are zoned in accordance with the suggested guidelines on rural housing…. persons wanting to apply in the ‘high pressure ‘ areas have to meet very stringent requirements on housing need, even before any planning issues are deliberated…..
to be honest, if you didn’t know of the existence of this provision of the guidelines, you really are debating without full knowledge of what you are arguing……… perhaps you should read the full document to understand all the different aspects of it…4.so you do not consider that sensitive, well designed dwellings can improve the aesthetic qualities of a SAC??? some of the best houses in the world are build in areas of extreme natural beauty, do you not think they add to the landscape… thats the basis of good architecture….. challanging…..
1. I have not suggested a total blanket ban as people working the land need to be accommodated; no other person has a prima facia need and should therefore have the same rules as their fellow citizens.
2. How exactly?
3. Until the county manager over-rules the planners; it happens every day. The sham that is the system is entirely illustrated by the 95% success rate in An Taisce appeals. The land is unzoned and unsuitable for development 95% of the time according to An Bord Pleananla
4. That is nonsense; the crap that is thrown up with PVC windows, Spanish tiled roofs and pastel renders together with disjointed garage blocks is the typical product.
i grew up in a rural part of laois… i live in a rented house in a town, i am not an agricultural or forestry worker… so you are saying if i wanted to build a house for myself and my family beside my home place i should not be accomodated…..??? ….. i would strongly argu ethat i should, and the guidleines make provisions for persons like myself to be able to… if you disagree, fine, again on this issue we will agree to disagree..
2. “anyone with a bit of Oirish in them can build anywhere”…. you know as well as i do, that that does not happen….. the guidleines were brought in to solve the discrepencies between planning authorities on who built in th ecountryside…… kerry mayo etc were blanket banning every application in some areas (no allowance for local need was met)… kildare / meath etc were giving permission to people moving from their 2 bed flat in dalkey to build their Dallas style mansion in rathangan (no allowance for local need was met)… see a theme appearing here……. the guidelines were brought in to create a level playing pitch….. again i will state, its the different enactment by different LAs thats causing the problems… not the guidelines themselves…… as long as we have local governance this is what will happen……
3. to me that statement shows 3 things:
a. an taisce choose their appeals carefully
b. an Bord Pleanal enforce the regulation sdifferent to the planning authorities.
c. if the ‘land’ is unsuitable then it has nothing to do with rural guidelines or local need…. they should be refused regardless……….4. you refused clients who wanted to apply in SACs, where you could design and advise,….. yet you complain about houses that you have no control over…… …….. ……. ……. that makes no sense.. its like a vote.. use it or loose it….
1. Yes if you work the land and make your living from it you get a house if you work in an urban area you are urban pressure on a rural area. I do not know how the issue could be in any way complicated.
2. Someone born in rural Co Dublin can build a house in Kerry; the only criterion is that you once came from a rural area. Again if you produce food you have a right if you don’t regardless of where you come from you are suburbanising a rural area.
3. I agree Bord Pleanala regularly reverse local authority decisions; if district courts were ignoring High Court judgements on a regular basis there would be uproar yet particular local authorities seem to be able to produce shoddy work all the time. This needs changing.
4. No that is not what I said; Noel O’Gara rings up Mark Fitzgerald of DTZ and says Mark I’ve got a prime resi site in Dublin 6; Mark hangs up as does Pat Gunne of CBRE. Noel gets allied auctioneers of Terenure and guess what the market knows that the title is shot. By doing an application in an SAC you are saying its ok to do it; I wouldn’t use any architect who designed a house in an SAC period. You build a clientbase on reputation and having the balls to refuse work on principle pays in the long run.
1. on this we have diffrent opinions, so i see your point, but i disgree with it.
PVC King wrote:2. Someone born in rural Co Dublin can build a house in Kerry]that is not correct… you have to have a long-standing family affiliation with THAT rural arera,.. not just any…. and again the different zonings of the counties come into issue here….
3. i agree with this point.
4.
PVC King wrote:By doing an application in an SAC you are saying its ok to do it]my apologies here, i got ‘special areas of conservation’ mixed up with ‘special areas of development control’.. its the latter in which i have had experience with… not the former… and i agree that development in a SAC should be restricted to a maximum… however i do not see how the ‘rural housing guidleines’ makes it acceptable for people to develop in SACs… if anything it lists the strict guidleines the planners have to take into account when deliberating on an application
“Planning authorities should have full regard to biodiversityconsiderations in determining individual applications for ruralhousing. Planning authorities must ensure that a proposal whichis likely to have a significant effect on an SAC or other designatedarea, is authorised only to the extent that the planning authorityis satisfied will not adversely affect the integrity of the area. Sucha proposal must be subjected to an appropriate assessment of itsimplications for the area, if it is clear, on the basis of a preliminaryexamination, that the project could have a significant effect on thearea. All aspects of the proposal which could, in themselves, or incombination with other proposals, affect the area’s conservationobjectives should be identified”“The location and siting of rural housing should beinformed by landscape character, quality and distinctiveness9.Proposals for housing in rural areas should be assessed havingregard to the extent to which they:•Complement the landscape and avoid unacceptable visualintrusion, •Introduce incongruous landscape elements, and•Help to maintain important landscape elements and featuresthat contribute to local landscape character, quality anddistinctiveness (e.g. topographical features, geological features,cultural features, or ecological resources which arecharacteristic of that landscape type)”
“The Planning Regulations require that planning applications thatmay affect the natural or built heritage be referred to certainprescribed bodies including the Department of the Environment,Heritage and Local Government. Planning authorities must ensurethat all planning applications for rural housing that involve siteslocated in or that might affect an SAC, SPA, NHA, Nature Reserve,National Park, refuge for fauna or flora or other areas of wildlifeimportance are referred to the relevant regional office of the NationalParks and Wildlife Service for comment.Likewise it is vital that any development proposal with potentialimpact on a known or suspected archaeological site or the settingof such a site or on the built heritage be notified to the DevelopmentApplications Unit of the Department of the Environment, Heritageand Local Government. Planning authorities should ensure thatprocedures are in place so that all referrals occur within five workingdays of the receipt of the individual planning application. Planningauthorities must have regard to any submissions or observationsmade in response to such referrals”.
as you can see above, applications in SACs have to go through stringent hoops to discover their merit….
looks like either blanket refusals or blanket grants are on the way…….
time for the Green party to express themselves….. i for one am glad they are in government to tackle this…..
Nothing like the rule of law to bring populists to book.
This is 5 years late and an immediate ban save for farmers cannot come quickly enough.
but again, any ban save for farmers would be challanged as positive discrimination……..
no difference to the spirit of the guidelines, youd simply be moving the goalposts….@PVC King wrote:
Nothing like the rule of law to bring populists to book.
This is 5 years late and an immediate ban save for farmers cannot come quickly enough.
what if I grew a few carrots in me back garrrrden and sold them at the local farmers market?
@henno wrote:
but again, any ban save for farmers would be challanged as positive discrimination……..
no difference to the spirit of the guidelines, youd simply be moving the goalposts….That is common practice on most European countries as it does not discriminate on the basis of race etc etc.
Hats
I’ll get you a slot at Mahon Point!!
@henno wrote:
but again, any ban save for farmers would be challanged as positive discrimination……..
no difference to the spirit of the guidelines, youd simply be moving the goalposts….Discrimination was what this thread started being all about
@wearnicehats wrote:
Discrimination was what this thread started being all about
yes….. part-discriminatory…. my first post reflected that…..
if the EU find these guidelines to be discriminatory, then its conceivable that any permission granted in a rural area will be considered discriminatory….I’m blue in the face stating this but the guidelines work… when enforced well…. its the lack of consistency at which LAs have enforced the guidelines thats the problem….. i personally do not know what the situation is in wicklow, but the more i hear the more ive come to the conclusion that people are mis-informed..
in ‘structurally weak’ areas that the population is declining in, LAs will granted permission to ANYONE once the other planning requirements are met….. thats what is recommended to reinforce the population in those areas….
reversely, in areas under ‘high pressure’ from urban generated rural housing, permissions will be reserved for persons who describe a defined ‘housing need’ to live in the area…..
thats makes complete sense to me…. i cannot see where the confusion lies….that article in PVCkings first post is filled with innaccurcies….
that article in todays independent is also filled with inaccurcies….
its easy to see how peoples opinions can be wrongly shaped when given so much mis-information….but i fear all PVCkings option would do is swap one discrimination for another….. I’m not discounting it, at least you are offering constructive criticism of the guidelines…
at the moment the guidelines discriminate on basis of ‘need’, i see no difference in PVCkings option….
the statement that ‘its common practice in most European countries’ doesn’t wash with me… the guidelines were enforced to protect Irish regions… none other….
@PVC King wrote:
That is common practice on most European countries as it does not discriminate on the basis of race etc etc.
!!there is no racial discrimination in the guidelines……
as i stated above, anyone can be granted permission in ‘structurall weak’ areas….if you check the link to the laois map above, anyone can be granted permission in the light green areas….so to argue that a non-national or even a non-provincial or even a non-county applicant cannot get a rural house is totally untrue and incorrect… and i challange anyone to prove otherwise….
obviously rural development is a finite resource, but some argue that people are packed into serviced urban areas to capacity and beyond…….
there was 8.5 million persons living in Ireland in 1840 in conditions much less technically sanitary, are we saying in 2007 that 4.5 million is too much???To me it’s pretty obvious that a ‘locals only’ rule will be replaced by a no ‘free rider’ rule – so if little JohhnyThomastown wants to build a McMansion next to his folks gaff while he commmutes to the IFSC he will be rightly told to feck off or-how about this one- shock horror -people might start to buy fixer upper eyesores near enough to where they think they should have a right to build (and if you are willing to commute for hours you should be flexible with yuor housing location)and may just possibly redevelop in a more sensitive manner.
when there was 8 million people living in the open countryside in this country they mostly lived in earthen hovels and were semi-nomadic-I don’t think the 5 bed, 3 bath, 2 car household of today can honestly be accommodated in the countryside-it’s my main reason for rejecting any of the reasoning put forward by O’Cuiv and that gaelgoir professor who’s name escapes me at the minute…
Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Deputy John Gormley): Information Zoom
The European Commission wrote to the Irish authorities last Autumn, seeking views on a complaint received by them regarding the application of local needs policies in relation to the granting of planning permission for a one-off rural house in County Wicklow. A reply to the Commission issued on 27 November, stating that the settlement strategy within Wicklow’s County Development Plan was in line with the National Spatial Strategy, Regional Planning Guidelines and the Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines. It was pointed out that the county settlement strategy had a specific criterion which facilitates those who need to be located in a rural area for economic activity.
My Department has received no further communication from the Commission on this matter. It is, however, understood from recent media reports that the European Commission will be considering the matter at a meeting on 27 June. If my Department receives any further correspondence from the Commission on this issue, it will be given due consideration.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/DDebate.aspx?F=DAL20070627.XML&Dail=30&Ex=All&Page=40
a bit late with this info, but just keeping the debate informed…..
Ive read the minutes of the commisions meeting on June 27 2007 and there was no mention of this, nor could i find any specific mention of it in the agenda for the meeting on july 18 2007…..
@Davids wrote:
In Wicklow’s case as just mentioned, all grants for planning permission to build rural dwellings have Section 47 occupancy restrictions attached. In brief, the dwelling cannot be sold until after a minimum period of at least 10years of occupancy by the applicant.
Similar restrictions are attached for other counties.For you info, according to the DoEHLG annual stats Wicklow accounted for just 3% of S.47 agreements in 2006. That is 80 agreements, Taking what you are saying as gospel then one could assume that only 80 rural dwellings were granted permission in Wicklow last year. Yet the CSO stats tell us there were 81 grants one off houses in the first quarter of 2007. In short I would be extremely sceptical about your assertion that all permissions to build rural dwellings in Wicklow have S.47 agreements attached.
By the way Cork Co. accounted for 57% or 1,234 of S.47 agreements for 2006
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
