Old Wives Tale????

Glad you were refused – the countryside is being destroyed with one-off houses.

Irish people have been living in one-off settlements in the countryside since the withdrawal of the ice sheets. It is very unfortunate that Irish people are not allowed to continue living in such traditional modes of habitation.

Since the ice-age local disputes in Ireland have been settled by individual combat, often at fords or crossroads. It is very unfortunate that Irish people are not allowed to continue this traditional mode of dispute settlement.

The biggest problem I have with one off housing is that the individual must be subsidisied by the State to live in this form of housing.
Where certain services are provided by the state free of charge, or for a flat rate despite the fact that the costs to the state are not “flat” (because of distance etc.) then if one expects to get those services at that flat rate, one must subject oneself to society’s rules.
examples of such services are refuse collection, post, electricity, telephone lines, school buses, ambulances, garda services, road maintenance, sewers etc. Then there all the problems caused by septic tanks and contamination of other people’s water. Furthermore people living in these places have to travel further and waste more petrol etc. in their cars – adding to global warming, and on a more concrete level problems with the Kyoto Protocol. Someone has to pay for all this at some stage – someone has to deal with the contaminated water etc.
If people actually live completely “off grid” as people historically did – with no expectation of provision of services from the State, and didn’t create significant problems for others by burning more fuel than necessary etc. then from a social perspective people living in this fashion isn’t so bad.

Also, on an architectural level, modern Irish houses tend to be very ugly.

Bob Dole makes very good points, all of which could be used to support an argument for the construction of high rises in our cities. Interestingly, however, when such arguments are made for the construction of high-rises, they are often dismissed by the anti-high rise lobby. Does this mean that Devin, delighted at the rejection of this planning application, would see these as legitimate arguments for the construction of some high rise buildings in Dublin and our other towns and cities?

High Density does not mean high rise. It is very possible to design high density without high rise – Georgian housing is high density for example.
Secondly what Irish people tend to classify as “high rise” is not high rise – see for example the ban on 4 storey buildings in Cork.
On the continent general heights in the cities tends to be about 5-6 storeys (the maximum that anyone would have been prepared to walk up before lifts got invented. (I’m over generalising here – hope noone minds too much.)
Noone there would consider this to be high rise.
This type of development of cities allows for far better provision of public transport, facilities for kids, playgrounds, corner shops, gyms, swimming pools etc. as well as allowing for walkable and “cycle-able” towns. It also leads to less traffic as people are able to use public transport or walk/cycle.

To be fair, Devin does know something about your development; he knows that it was refused planning permission. I guess my view on your question is that it would be wrong if this was reversed because of some technicality.

More generally, rural housing shouldn’t be such a difficult issue, simple planning rules could minimize the visual impact, for example, people could be required to retain original walls and hedgerows, similarily, a rate would allow the additional economic cost of one-off housing to be charged to the beneficiary and sensible transport policies and congestion charging would reduce the damaging tendency to commute to the cities from the countryside. Although I made fun of it aboveI don’t think the venacular usage arguement is without merit.

I would guess that the commuter estates being build at the edge of villages are having a bigger negative effect on the quality of life and here, as, I think in the case of one-of rural housing, what’s important is not some blanket ban or the opposate, but tightly impliment and rigous planning guidelines.

Old wives tale alright – the date of the actual refusal letter being sent out is the crucial date – not the day you recieve it in the post.
I’m sure there is an overpriced 1100sq.ft. 3 bed semi nestled in an imaginatively designed scheme of 1500 “housing units”, 2 miles from a small town centre waiting for you. Apparently this is the way we must all live out the rest of our days.

This is a situation I have seen before and have presented a view ideas on before. I won’t go into it again, but I really find it hilarious that people criticise others for wanting to build one-off houses in the country and often on their own land. It is ok if the houses are suitably styled and modelled by some overly-priced architect and that Duncan Stewart is able to make a programme out of it for RTE. But when some poor bastard who grew up in a particular area and probably wants to continue living and working in that area wants to build an average dwelling according to his needs and financial abilities, he is the world’s worst. I am not an apologist for the many Southforks around the country, but a person should be entitled to live in their own country and on their own land without having to get Norman Foster in to design their house. And then we hear all of the crap from people who whine about rural depopulation and the soaring population of Dublin. Go to the north west and look for one-off houses – the most you will see are collapsing famine cottages because it has already become financially unfeasible to live in many parts of the countryside of Ireland. Why are people so sensitive to houses being built in the countryside when half the population lives in chicken sheds around Dublin because that is all they can afford. It seems that the Ireland of the future is Dublin and 25 other empty green counties. Fantastic.

@DUCK wrote:

To Devin:
You Know Absoloutely Nothing About My Proposed Development And What It Entails.

Am I to read from that that your project is a well-designed & environmentally-friendly house sitting sensitively in its surrounds rather than the usual dormer-Georgian intrusive monstrosity? Well, perhaps it is, but comments like: “I just got refused planning permission to build a one off house in a rural location (no surprise there)” are a bit rich when something like 85%* of all proposed one-off houses in the countryside are granted permission.

*I may be corrected on that, but it’s a very high % anyway.

@Bob Dole wrote:

The biggest problem I have with one off housing is that the individual must be subsidisied by the State to live in this form of housing.
Where certain services are provided by the state free of charge, or for a flat rate despite the fact that the costs to the state are not “flat” (because of distance etc.) then if one expects to get those services at that flat rate, one must subject oneself to society’s rules.
examples of such services are refuse collection, post, electricity, telephone lines, school buses, ambulances, garda services, road maintenance, sewers etc. Then there all the problems caused by septic tanks and contamination of other people’s water. Furthermore people living in these places have to travel further and waste more petrol etc. in their cars – adding to global warming, and on a more concrete level problems with the Kyoto Protocol. Someone has to pay for all this at some stage – someone has to deal with the contaminated water etc.
.

Has the majority of the Irish population not being subsidising the minority living in Dublin for years? Where does the state spend most of its money on infrastructure – roads, rail, hospitals, universities – yes – in Dublin. Who pays a good share of this – all of those people living in one-off houses around the country. Who benefits least from this – all of those people living in one-off housing around the state. Is it unreasonable then that some state coffers go into funding those people who simply chose to live outside of a more town/city. If not, we should all be forced to relocate to Dublin and then we could sell the rest of the state to the Russians for nuclear testing and we could live in a Hong-Kong style manner around Dublin Bay.

I would be very very suprised if Dublin were being subsidized by the rest of the country to be frank and, environmentally, cities are always kinder. However, I think this is a dumb way of looking at things, people want to live in the countryside, some of them have historic links with the areas they want to live in or work locally and we need to think about how they can be facilitated in a way that is sustainable and has a little impact as possible in the enviroment and on the look and character of the Irish countryside and doesn’t have such a disproportionate cost to services.

It would be easier to look kindly on rural housing if it wasn’t all five bedroom monster homes with three bathrooms with a breeze block wall and a drive exiting straight onto a busy road and mail delivered to the door, and in my experience, I am from a rural area, that these days is what its about.

@PDLL wrote:

Has the majority of the Irish population not being subsidising the minority living in Dublin for years? Where does the state spend most of its money on infrastructure – roads, rail, hospitals, universities – yes – in Dublin. Who pays a good share of this – all of those people living in one-off houses around the country. Who benefits least from this – all of those people living in one-off housing around the state. Is it unreasonable then that some state coffers go into funding those people who simply chose to live outside of a more town/city. If not, we should all be forced to relocate to Dublin and then we could sell the rest of the state to the Russians for nuclear testing and we could live in a Hong-Kong style manner around Dublin Bay.

Thats the old smokers fund the department of health while smoking related diseases uses so much of its resources argument

The original argument pointed out that one-off houses are effectively subsidized by the state due to the difficulties of providing services to them (telephone, water etc etc). Yes they are more expensive to provide initial services to. I am pointing out that, lest we forget, about 1 third of all tax payers in the State live in Dublin. About two thirds of all tax payers in the state live outside of Dublin (admittedly, not all in one-off houses). Even if Dublin produces half of the state’s GDP, at a guess I would say that a disproportionate amount of tax payers resources are spent on infrastructural developments in the greater Dublin region at the cost of an evenly balanced development of the country as a whole. Just look at the recent transport plan to support that one. Might be useful to talk to some one with cancer in north Donegal who has paid taxes all of their live but still has to do without proper facilities because taxpayers money has been used to centralise many medical resources in Dublin. Who is subsidizing who?

again, pdll, this i think this is bad way of looking at resource usage in the country, but, if we are going to have this discussion, i won’t be convinced by simple bluster that dublin is being subsidized by the rest of the country; i would need some facts and figures and you have none, nor do i think would it be easy to find any, for example, the port tunnel, build under dublin but to whose benefit? who were all those motorways for?

the reason the arguement you give is a bad way to look at resource allocation is because it is the arguement that says blah blah people live in roscommon, therefore roscommon needs a general hospital with blah blah resources and anyone from roscommon should be treated there, nonesense, you are better off being treated in galway or even dublin were they see more than one case a decade of whatever rare cancer of the caecum you have and you therefore have a considerably higher chance of surviving. centralizing medical resources works; you have a community of specialists with different types of expertise working together instead of one cancer or whatever specialist who deals with everthing from cancer of the caecum to cancer of the hair follicals. if i got sick, or i had a child with a disability, i would be thinking, could i get a job in london, not, could i get a job in roscommon and no amount of so called equal distribution of resources will change that. we are just luck here that we have at least one big city, some countries of our size don’t.

I’m not sure this is particularly relevant to the thread, but I would make the folloiwng few points in response to your comments:

now you’re just being silly, the fact that athlone is the literal geographical centre is kind of a side issue; the population centre is probably maynooth or maybe kildare and anyway, that isn’t the point is it?

as for facts and figures, well, i agree, i have none, but i didn’t claim i did; its an impossible calculation to decide so lets not try and decide resource allocation on some misguided principle of regionalization.

Apologies pdll if people seem to be ganging up on you. It seems to me that you are mixing up a macro and micro scale in your argument. The problem is not with Roscommon v. Dublin, it is in one off houses outside Dublin v. houses in Dublin city, one off houses outside Cork v. houses in Cork city.

Secondly regarding Dublin, certain population densities are required to support certain facilities (Luas, Dart, Conference centres etc.), which require certain amounts of infrastructure. The provision of those facilities allows for economic growth. I suspect (but I don’t know) that spending money on infrastructure in Dublin allows for more economic growth to the State and say spreading the same money around the Midlands.

I’d suspect that if anyone has a reason to complain about the spread of money, it would be the people of Cork city (and possibly Galway and Limerick etc.) rather than people from counties with lower population densities.

@PDLL wrote:

If the infrastructure in the capital is improved at an exponential rate compared to that in the regions, then inevitably Dublin becomes the centre of the Irish world (this is just nineteenth century urban history repeating itself). The better the infrastructure in Dublin gets, the more employment there is, then more people move there, then the infrastructure needs more investment, then it gets more investment and the cycle goes on and on. While this cycle is progressing, another cycle is taking place in parallel. The better the infrastructure in Dublin gets, the more employment there is, then more people move there, then the countryside is depopulated, then there is no justification to improve infrastructure in the country areas, then the country becomes further depopulated as people don’t want to live there and so it goes on. The intelligensia sits and mulls over the urban overflow in Dublin -‘what can be done – we know, invest more in the city and attract more people – wonderful’ and occasionally they bemoan the depopulation of the countryside which is progressively becoming a green desert ideal for tourist snaps devoid of interfering pesky humans.

So it’s Dublin and/or the ‘intelligentsia’ that’s responsible for rural depopulation and the blight of three-bed semis across the nation?

We had a little thing called the National Spatial Strategy that came out in 2002, designed to last until 2020, the purpose of which was to redistribute development away from Dublin to a hierarchy of centres around the country. These centres were selected for a variety of reasons, chief among them being growth potential and transport connectivity. Then so-called Decentralisation came along and undermined the potential of the NSS (I’d say ‘undermined the good work’, but the NSS hardly had time to tie its laces before it was shunted aside), all because of political interference and the lowest, most shameless sort of vote grabbing nonsense by the existing Government (this is not an anti-FF rant, but they were the main party in power at the time).
It has been acknowledged for some time that the unchecked growth of Dublin is actually counter-productive in economic terms, but it’s difficult to fault Dublin City Council and the others in the GDA for trying to maximise their incomes. These decisions have to be taken at a higher level- at precisely the level at which such a mess has been made of the process until now, so there’s little hope it will improve. It’s not enough to publish the NSS (flawed and all as it might have been, it’s still the best we’ve got at this point), there must be the political will and the necessary resources to implement it.
So to say that ‘the intelligentsia’ (presumably you mean the planning mavens of the DEHLG?) decided to increase investment in Dublin is patently nonsense.

How does this tie into the one-off debate? The NSS recommended limitations on single rural dwellings and investment in the selected towns for economic reasons. It’s not, as you think, simply a matter of aesthetics, taste and visual intrusion, though there’s an element of that too.
I don’t dispute that there have been some pure muck estates built around the country, but where do you see the local landowners fitting into this? The builders? The ‘designers’ (I use the word in its broadest sense)? If the local authorities turned down every application for a field of three-bed semis, no doubt you’d be up in arms decrying the interference of the bloody planners in a landowner’s right to make a few quid off the land that’s been in his family since his ancestor drove Cromwell out of town with only a big stick and a purposeful gait.

There is rarely ‘bravery’ in wanting to build in the countryside.
It’s selfish in the extreme to expect the rest of us to pick up the tab.
Many (most?) people would like a patch of land to call their own, but some of us see beyond the ends of our noses.

We have experienced unprecedented population growth in this country in the last 10 or so years, and we have signally failed to deal with it. the days of living remote from the plebs are past for all but the richest few, but we’ve not yet realised this and less still have we developed the means to deal with it. If you don’t agree, just go to Co. Laois. We need a wholesale re-evaluation of what it means to live in both city and country and a dose of real imagination to come up with solutions, rather than petty chip-on-my-shoulder whining about poor little me and the big bad man who won’t let me get my way.

@ctesiphon wrote:

So it’s Dublin and/or the ‘intelligentsia’ that’s responsible for rural depopulation and the blight of three-bed semis across the nation?.

The primary cause of rural depopulation world-wide is urbanism. It has been since the industrial revolution. In Ireland, the primary causes of rural depopulation have been emigration and the movement of people to our cities and major towns, in particular, Dublin Galway, Limerick and Cork. As we now live in an age of net immigration rather than net emigration, emigration can no longer be considered a factor with regard to depopulation. This leaves us with internal movement of people towards our cities. Dublin as the country’s capital and industrial, educational and administrative hub has the greatest gravitational pull in that regard. The projected increase in the population of the greater Dublin region obviously indicates that this is the case and will probably remain so over the next two decades. In this context, it is reasonable to argue that the unchecked growth of Dublin is one of the primary causes of rural depopulation in Ireland. The fact that the Government continues to poor much of the nation’s resources into the development of the greater Dublin region (GDR for simplicity) simply perpetuates an already critical situation.

You mentioned the NSS ‘the purpose of which was to redistribute development away from Dublin to a hierarchy of centres around the country’. According to this NSS, Sligo, for example, would be developed into a ‘Gateway City’ over the next couple of decades. Sounds great, but a couple of years on, the reality is clear. The NSS is nothing but a theory that is undermined by the reality of Government spending. Examine the reality of the Government’s latest transport plan – it is quite clear where most of the money will go. This is a non-debatable fact. If the Government was serious about reversing the trend of rural depopulation, it would actively encourage growth in areas such as the North West by providing it with the necessary infrastructure to allow for the development of industry which would sustain a population base and which might encourage a reverse movement of people. In short, the Government has two options: continue to feed the endless development of Dublin by throwing endless investment at it (which makes as much sense as a drug addict continually feeding their habit so as to avoid the pain of stopping) or attempt to gradually reverse the trend by seriously stimulating growth in the regions by providing serious infrastructural investment (just one example: a double rail line from Derry around the coast to Dublin) and by providing incentives for people to relocate out of Dublin. I do not see decentralization as undermining the potential of the NSS, as the plan for decentralization is as theoretical and unlikely to happen as the NSS is.

I am not faulting Dublin City Council – I never said that I was. I understand that this is a national issue determined by national policies. It is obvious that for whatever reasons, the national authorities are sadly unable or unwilling to seriously intervene in the situation and reverse it. The effects of that unwillingness are most obvious in the Border Midlands region.

By the ‘intelligensia’, I was referring to RTE commentators, various journalists of national newspapers and academics. I was also referring to Dublin-based individuals who criticise rural dwellers for wishing to build on their own land for not designing houses that are somehow visionary architectural constructs that are designed to specifically mould themselves to the landscape in which they will be sited. This, as I pointed out before, is a luxury for many if not most rural one-off house dwellers (many of which are farmers) in the same way that it is a luxury for many urban dwellers living in the likes of Crumlin etc. People should not castigate others who have a legitimate desire to build a house according to their own financial limitations on their own land, subject to reasonable planning regulations. Equally so, people should not be so short-sighted as to assume that all people can live near DART lines or bus-services. Incredible as it may seem, many people do not work in offices in city centres but actually need to live in one-off dwellings as they may be farmers who need to live near their livestock or they may consciously make a life-style choice (which they are entitled to do in a democratic country) to live in an environment away from others. If that means they cost the state a few more euros than someone else living in an estate on the outskirts of a rural town, so be it – those living in Tallaght cost the State quite a lot too in terms of providing the LUAS and so on.

@ctesiphon wrote:

How does this tie into the one-off debate? .

If conditions are such that people find it financially difficult (due to strict design constraints) to build in the countryside, it will obviously not encourage or stimulate the re-population of the countryside. This is not to say that people should be allowed to build whatever they want wherever they want – of course there must be regulations.

If the definition of rural re-population is to move people out of Dublin so they can be corralled once more in non-descript housing estates around our Gateway cities and towns, the we will go down the road of Britain where we have nothing but urban centres separated by green wastelands. What a model to follow. Oh, I forgot, we would also have a few thousand plush environmentally and architect-friendly homes in between. Phew, what a relief, I was afraid there would be no one to look after our cows – after all agriculture still accounts for 7% of our GDP and 10% of our employment and those people and their families do need to live somewhere (mind you they could commute from Crumlin each morning)

@ctesiphon wrote:

It’s selfish in the extreme to expect the rest of us to pick up the tab..

Agreed – so why should 2.9 million citizens outside of Dublin pay for the LUAS line for those selfish gits who chose to live way out in Stillorgan – could they not have lived in some nice architecturally stylish high-rise in the Docklands. If they did we wouldn’t have to extend the water pipes, the telecommunication lines and so on out that far. It would also be more environmentally friendly as they wouldn’t need to drive so much. Oh, they were the arguments used against one-off housing in the countryside!

@ctesiphon wrote:

rather than petty chip-on-my-shoulder whining about poor little me and the big bad man who won’t let me get my way.

Ah, nothing like personal invective to further a discussion.

@PDLL wrote:

What are his choices: either he pays a shit load of money that he probably doesn’t have to get some fancy architect -designed home (a luxury for many) that fulfils all of the criteria for a Duncan Stewart visit or he lives in some crap mass produced house on the outskirts of one of our towns.

@PDLL wrote:

So what are these guys options – well he can pay a fortune to have a nice architect-designed home that will respect the environment and the contours of the field he wishes to site it in or he he can pay a fortune to have a nice architect-designed home that will respect the environment and the contours of the field he wishes to site it in. Good, he knows where he stands. The poor guy though is probably one of those people who just wants a reasonable home at a level that he can afford – he isn’t applying for the cover of Home and Garden.

Could someone tell me, if you wan’t to build a four bed 170sqm one-off house in the country the what is the difference in cost between buying a set of plans or getting an architect to design it?

@PDLL wrote:

Ah, nothing like personal invective to further a discussion.

Are you saying that I should ignore petty me feinism where I see it and concentrate on the issues that are germane to the argument here? Interesting, when petty me feinism and avoidance of the bigger picture is the bread and butter of the pro-one-off brigade. So it appears (yet again in this tiresome debate) that there is one set of rules for one side and another set for the other.
Also, I would hardly say that cherry-picking points, truncating quotes and ignoring the awkward arguments is a way to further a discussion.

Urbanism (I presume you mean urbanisation?) causes rural depopulation? No. Urbanisation and rural depopulation are caused by the same thing- economic policy. Yes, people leave the countryside to live in cities, but many would rather not move at all. Isn’t the desire for one-offs evidence of this?

Your point re the NSS is… eh… is the same as the one I made. Except for this:
@PDLL wrote:

I do not see decentralization as undermining the potential of the NSS, as the plan for decentralization is as theoretical and unlikely to happen as the NSS is.

Let me get this straight- you are saying:
a) ‘Decentralisation’ is theoretical]I was also referring to Dublin-based individuals who criticise rural dwellers for wishing to build on their own land for not designing houses that are somehow visionary architectural constructs that are designed to specifically mould themselves to the landscape in which they will be sited.[/QUOTE]
See, this is an example of a point I answered before, an answer you chose to ignore in order ot make your point again. It’s not purely aesthetic, it’s economic and it’s environmental. Also, it’s not just Dubliners (or even ‘Dublin based individuals’) who are against one-offs. More enlightened rural dwellers also see the rationale. But that doesn’t support your argument so neatly.
@PDLL wrote:

Equally so, people should not be so short-sighted as to assume that all people can live near DART lines or bus-services.

Perhaps everyone can’t live near the DART (or the LUAS), but everyone can live near a bus route. It’s called a road. It mightn’t have a bus on it at the moment, but it has the potential.
@PDLL wrote:

If that means they cost the state a few more euros than someone else living in an estate on the outskirts of a rural town, so be it – those living in Tallaght cost the State quite a lot too in terms of providing the LUAS and so on.

‘So be it’, as long as they don’t mind paying for the extra cost. Tallaght residents pay a LUAS fare, though the better point here is that the LUAS is available to everyone, not just residents of the areas along its length. Or are you now going to argue that rural dwellers who come to Dublin aren’t going to use the LUAS to get from Heuston into town as some form of protest?
@PDLL wrote:

If the definition of rural re-population is to move people out of Dublin so they can be corralled once more in non-descript housing estates around our Gateway cities and towns, the we will go down the road of Britain where we have nothing but urban centres separated by green wastelands. What a model to follow. Oh, I forgot, we would also have a few thousand plush environmentally and architect-friendly homes in between.

Again, No. We have a hierarchy of settlements from cities down to modest villages. Your black-and-white way of making points undermines any validity your argument might have.
@PDLL wrote:

agriculture still accounts for 7% of our GDP and 10% of our employment and those people and their families do need to live somewhere

Agriculture has been in decline for some time now and will continue to go that way. Whether you like it or not, we can no longer characterise ourselves as an agricultural society, and it’s disingenuous of you to suggest that all or most of the rural houses are desired by farmers who want to be on their land.
In addition, agriculture is one of the economic areas most heavily subsidised by the EU- though I presume that you are as against other EU countries subsidising our agricultural economy as you are against rural people subsidising the growth of Dublin? Or perhaps you think that the EU should subsidise Irish agriculture in the same way that city dwellers should bear the slightly higher cost of rural people wanting to live in one-offs? Y’see, PDLL, I’m confused now by your lack of consistency. Confused I am.
@PDLL wrote:

why should 2.9 million citizens outside of Dublin pay for the LUAS line for those selfish gits who chose to live way out in Stillorgan

We’ve been over this before, but in essence:
a) Levies were imposed on developers building in the vicinity of the LUAS to cover much of the cost.
b) It makes economic sense to provide public transport to areas of large population density.
c) City dwellers pay more tax per capita than rural dwellers.
d) It is more cost-effective to develop urban public transport systems than it is to build new roads to the four corners (not that they aren’t needed- I’m simply making a cost-effectiveness point).
e) So if anything, urban taxpayers are subsidising their country cousins (a position you in effect endorsed above- remember?) rather than the other way around.

In conclusion:
Most cases of ‘need’ in the countryside are just desire masquerading as need.
There are economic and environmental cases against one-offs as well as visual ones (while the visual one is subjective, the others are not).
The alternatives need to be made more attractive, i.e. more than just identikit three-bed semis and shoebox apartments.
Most of the tools for this exist already- the NSS, the PDA 2000 (Local Area Plans, Village Design Statements etc.)
The main problem is the unwillingness of the Government to implement a worthwhile proposal (the NSS), at root caused by our shambolic political system.
We need a wholesale re-evaluation of the way we live today in cities, in towns and in the countryside, unencumbered by notions of personal freedom.
We need to focus on responsibilities more than on rights.
We need to collaborate rather than plough our lonely personal furrows.

I think I’m spent on this one. I doubt I’ve changed your mind, nor have you changed mine.

Thanks for the extensive and indepth reply, ctesiphon. I will get back on a couple of interesting points that you made when time allows although I will be off the radar screen for the next 6 days.

Qoute : Could someone tell me, if you wan’t to build a four bed 170sqm one-off house in the country the what is the difference in cost between buying a set of plans or getting an architect to design it?

Munsterman,
These guys are architects, they do not debase themselves discussing filthy lucre, it is much more artistic to run down one-off houses and talk about high-rises. Architects will charge you 11% or so of the contract sum. If there is a bit of competition in the area you might beat one down to about 9%. Buying a set of plans can be a lottery; if your builder is good you should not have a construction problem, but you probaly will have a “style” one as most of the plans I have seen are crap vis-a-vis Irish countryside. If your builder needs help when there is a glitch in the plans you are screwed. There are some architects who have a “stock” house that has been approved by the planners (so it becomes easier for you to obtain planning) and they will supervise building it for 4-6%. Some builders have something similar and will build it faster and cheaper because their workforce is used to building that particular design.
It’s down to what you want – individuality or lower cost.
KB2

@KerryBog2 wrote:

These guys are architects, they do not debase themselves discussing filthy lucre, it is much more artistic to run down one-off houses and talk about high-rises.

Who’s an architect now? Not sure about PDLL, but I go under the broad category of planner and citizen.
The reason I didn’t answer Munsterman’s question is that I don’t know the answer, simple as that.
Without being facetious, I’d say that you can get a pattern house for the price of a Bungalow Bliss book, which I’ve seen for as little as €5 second hand. The other end of the scale is up to you/your architect- the sky’s the limit really, as has been covered by KB2 above.