Positive changes at An Taisce

double post

let’s face it most of them look shite

It’s also fundamentally unfair that the Burghers along the Luas line get to see their property values increase at the cost of National taxes taken from everybody for what is decidedly not a national railline.

I think that Dubliners can never spot the plank in their own eye.

( I suspect that many one off houses are built along roads with existing powerlines).

Still waiting for the debate about Howth head, an area of national beauty which is still being built on.

Eanna Ní Lamhna was on the radio yesterday for a good 35min debate, along with the chairman of the Irish Rural Dwellers Association and someone from the RIAI, and an expert on Irish planning. It started off promising but it decended into the usual bickering towards the end – indeed the putrid hatred of AT on the part of the chair of the IRDA was really extraordinary, quite funny really – you could hear the rage in his voice & the tension between him and Ní Lamhna could be cut with a knife, but she came over the better of the two.
Still it was the best debate on the one-off issue thus far – a few good concise points were made on the part of AT, Ní Lamhna got a decent plug in about the organisation’s other work for once, but again there was no time to get any of AT’s policies across, neither did the IRDA. The reps of the RIAI and planning did however broadly come across in favour of AT, describing them as a symptom of the one-off issue rather than the cause, and the necessity for a body indepedent of Govt and local authorites.

The contentious issue of what is a one-off dwelling and what is a dwelling that is part of a traditional scattered community also arose, and calls were made for such types of development to be defined in dev plans, and sustainable models and examples specified.
Ní Lamhna did slip up though on the question of does AT support the principal of the one-off house, to which too general an answer was given, resulting her being asked 5 or 6 times, much to the delight of the Mr IRDA. Also the public listing of members’ names occupied a lot of time, the IRDA calling for it to happen considering they have a statutory role – regardless that they are a private organisation.

On any future media outings for AT, they should definitely make a short list of main points beforehand that they wish to get across
about their policies, rather than getting bogged down in contentious issues deliberately stirred up by opponents. Overall, Ní Lamhna proved her worth to the organisation. It was a pity though, considering the presence of the RIAI that the architectural aspect of rural development wasn’t mentioned at all.
It’s well worth a download from the RTE website.

Just on the issue of Section 140s, what is their purpose – what’s the idea behind them?

Didn’t hear that radio discussion

I tried to download it but it asked cfor redit card details, even though it said the free sample of the necessary software was enough to hear the programme

Section 140s can be appealed. But planning in Kerry – where Section 140 is most abused – has collapsed . For somebody like An Taise, better off concentrating on somewhere that hasn’t already been wrecked, like the upper Shannon region.

All around Clifden in Galway is absolutely appalling too, and huge, awful stuff is still being built there. I know what “outsider” Llyod Weber meant when he said that we have some of the most hideous and inappropriate housing anywhere in the world.

Its all about mobility. I hope the oil runs out soon. just a personal view

If all one-offs were of high architectural quality, had waste water treatment ponds, householders used wind-generated electric cars, paid for back-up electricity connections themselves etc, and were all-round models of sustainability, would AT support such one-off scattered development?
Please don’t say but they aren’t – just, as an idea, would AT support such housing, or would it still be rejected on community grounds?
It’s just interesting cause so much of debate gets grounded on the present, ineffective septic tanks etc, but looking to the future, which is what’s important, is such scattered development deemed acceptable?

quite general but as u say sadly more or less highly accurate. them and students. but i am just wondering now is this the way with every city in countries with immigration. examples come to mind of the various china towns. just a little thought.

while i generally agree with ur assesment for traffic etc, i still can’t help but come back to the same old reasoning. if a family owns land then they can build on it if they want.
there may be a solution to the whole thing that we are all missing because, to be honest it’s like ww1, trench warfare, each side thinks they are right, and u have to admit there are very stubborn people on both sides, and so there is a standoff and nobody wants to think of compromise. i will admit, the argument that irish peple have lived on the land all the time to be quite tiresome, as under british direct rule the landlords owned the land and therefore the irish were tenants who lived in little settlements. before this they lived in clans. if they said it was about the right of a person to live on their own land then to be honest in opiion there isn’t really a whole lot to do. of course the regulations need to be tightened ,not only for the protection of the most scenic areas, but in general too. i find it funny that a house can be regulated but for farmers who spread slurry onto land there is no action. this is a major pollution factor. dare i say more than an average domestic dwelling. then again i don’t make the rules i only have to follow them.

What are they at down there, I mean the most ludicrous of all – submitting motions after the meeting started?!?
You’d wonder about this place you really would…