One-off houses: Good or Bad?

Danno · 03-11-2009 11:37pm

Truely shocking.

Danno · 03-11-2009 11:39pm

Furet wrote: »

Here's a picture I took of Gweedore in May 2008. Total dispersal, making any provision of communal services quite difficult.

That photo is disgusting. Oh my God, what have they done?

Dum_Dum · 04-11-2009 12:15am

marmurr1916 wrote: »

Some county councils are worse than others when it comes to giving planning permission for one-off housing.

Galway County Council has got to be one of the worst in the country.

So is Waterford County Council in the area around the City. However, parts of Wexford can look quite sparse?

Are such developments categorised and are figures available on a county-by-county basis?

westtip · 04-11-2009 11:08am

Furet I have just read this thread and the views were very much to be expected; the article you posted in post 20 on this thread was the best piece I have read on one off housing in a long time; for those that haven't read it I recommend scrolling back.

The arguments about rural one off housing maintaining communities has two sides, my greatest fear though is not the sense of community they create but th sense of isolation.

A typical pattern for building rural one off houses(ROFH's) is for a couple maybe with a family perhaps not yet - but they are typically built for families - which is good - its good to see people with families living in rural ireland; however it is the impact of the houses we build - huge great big things with their own septic tanks etc etc, and then maybe 2 or 3 children come along - and the norm is not to go beyond 3 kids these days. So we have gone from having tiny cottages and town houses with 14 kids in to barracks containing at most 5 people. The children grow up in splendid isolation - they don't have big families to play with they don't have the kids next door, they have to get in a car to go for "play dates" or to GAA or swimming or school. We can't let them cycle or walk to school because its too dangerous (look at those poor cats in Castlebar - see post 20), and then the kids grow up and the parents become a taxi service and then the go to college and then they leave - because leaving rural communities is a pattern that exists globally, there is no shame in leaving a community to go and set up life elsewhere - it shows ambition and is natural. The issue is what will we be left with in 20 or 30 years time - A lot of very big houses occupied by a lot of old people - some living on their own some with their spouses but nevertheless at the wrong end of the age spectrum. The houses will be unsaleable, and they will have outlived their usefullness.

Now we have a problem. There are a lot of ROFH's out there - they are not going to go away and they can't be knocked down; we do need to limit the stock level and not allow it to increase exponentially.

The planning rules do need to become more stingent - but the issue of how do we address and fix what we have created also needs to be looked at.

I think one of the biggest issues for ROFHs is connectivity - and I am not talking roads here. Houses need to be connected - by footpaths. - Now I am not necessarily talking about ripping up the side of the road and laying footpaths alongside every boreen - no we need to look at how we can connect the entire coutryside with a network of footpaths away from the roads - and for this we need the co-operation of farmers.

We all know how opposed the IFU really is to access to the land for walking - but on the other hand they want to allow every farmer to build a house for his/her daughter/son. Well here is a thought - no plans for ROFH should be conisidered unless it can be connected to its nearest ROFH by a footpath - now that footpath may run on the other side of the stone wall from the road -which the house is on (ie through the field), but it has to be in place.

If Local Area Plans paid more heed to footpath and cycling connectivity between ROFHs they might develop a new way of social sustainability into the future for ROFHs - children need to be able to walk and cyle to their neighbors, to their schools and to their grannies. We are in the amazing situation when a farmer could build an ROFH for his son/daughter half a mile from the family homestead - but the only way his 8 9 or 10 year old grandchildren can visit him and his wife is if they are put in a car and driven there. Now imagine if the planning condition had said along the road that connects your two houses you must put in a footpath - and in order to sustain the character of rural ireland this footpath must be the other side of the stone wall on the road that has been there for generations and by the way you are not going to be paid some stupid amount of money for this wee strip of land - and public access to this pathm now if this had been the case with all ROFHs we would now have a network of paths and cycleways across the coutry and what would that have done to solve rural isolation?

Joined up one off rural housing = joined up thinking = joined up communities = social interaction = less car dependency = less road deaths of pedestrians = fitter healthier nation = less heart disease = more joie d'vivre. = a lot more living.

marmurr1916 · 04-11-2009 2:18pm

Some of the disadvantages of rural one-off housing:

1. visual pollution of the landscape

2. light pollution

3. pollution from septic tanks

4. air pollution: most residents of these houses use cars as their primary means of travel

5. increase in cost of providing services.

Almost all services provided to these one-off houses, whether provided by state or private enterprise are more costly to provide, because of their dispersed nature, than the cost of supplying services to houses in an urban setting.

Look at the picture supplied by Furet of housing near Gweedore in Co. Donegal.

How many extra kilometres of road is it necessary to maintain to serve these houses compared to the amount that would be needed if they were in an urban setting?

How many extra kilometres of electricity cabling is it necessary to instal and maintain compared to the amount that would be needed if they were in an urban setting?

How many extra kilometres must school buses/bin lorries/post office vans/delivery trucks/repair and maintenance vehicles etc travel each year to service these houses because of their dispersed nature?

Their dispersed nature also means that the emergency services have further to travel - the extra time required has probably led to people dying.

This extra travel doesn't just add to the costs of providing services, it also contributes to extra pollution.

On top of this, the residents of these houses must travel extra distances to commute to work, to school/college, to access services, to attend events, to shop, to socialise and so on.

All of this extra travel adds to extra strain on the road network (and means that instead of maintaining a shorter road network to higher standards, Ireland has to maintain a very extensive road network with lower standards) and adds to pollution and accident rates.

murphaph · 04-11-2009 6:09pm

Some of the same whingebags who bemoan the loss of tourism to rural ireland (and sometimes go so far as to blame 'Dublin') are the staunchest advocates of this bungalow blitz, which has destroyed vast areas of visual amenity.

Aidan1 · 04-11-2009 7:36pm

5. increase in cost of providing services.

Good post, but this one cannot be overstated. The additional cost of servicing these one off houses with everything that is expected of the State is huge. In some cases the costs of these services are concealed within Public Service Obligations (or Universal SOs), like in Electricity Supply, Telecoms or Postal Services. In others they are more explicit. Rural public transport, education, health care - in fact pretty much all services are made more expensive by dispersed populations. This applies to business also - they have to travel more and incur more costs (and other inefficiencies in terms of time) to serve the same number of customers as competitors in urban areas. Both they and the consumers they serve are put at a dramatic disadvantage by the settlement geography.

This is particular clear when you look at future services - it is a practical impossibility to get FTTH to all of these houses, the costs rule it out. And while FTTH might be relatively doable in the 4 cities of any scale (and quite cheap in these cases also because many of them are already ducted), the fact that a large proportion of the electorate will never be able to access it makes this politically very difficult.

But the killer is going to be transport costs in future. There is little point in making houses hugely more energy efficient, and shifting increasingly towards renewable generation, if a very large proportion of the population will still need to use very large quantities of energy every day just to go about their business. This dispersed housing pattern is largely responsible for our disproportionately large consumption of transport fuel per head. It also means that people living in these houses are hugely vulnerable to oil price spikes. Moreover, this would bad enough if they were affected in this way, but the record shows that this dispersed population will run straight to Government to support their way of life, to the detriment of the general tax payer.

Simple solution - focus national growth on the three (or four at a push) cities outside of Dublin, but focus growth on a local level - such as it exists - into designated villages and towns, ideally those already possessing a critical mass of population to ensure services. The 'ring town' concept pushed by Cork County Council in the CASP is a great example of what this can achieve if done right (although ideally it wouldn't be undermined overnight by a Minister for the Environment relaxing the planning regs, as happened in 2001/2).

serfboard · 04-11-2009 7:52pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

Simple solution - focus national growth on the three (or four at a push) cities outside of Dublin, but focus growth on a local level - such as it exists - into designated villages and towns, ideally those already possessing a critical mass of population to ensure services. The 'ring town' concept pushed by Cork County Council in the CASP is a great example of what this can achieve if done right (although ideally it wouldn't be undermined overnight by a Minister for the Environment relaxing the planning regs, as happened in 2001/2).

I think what we should do is to keep voting Fianna Fail back in - we can rely on them to do what's best for the nation.

Insanity: Constantly repeating the same pattern and expecting a different result.

medoc · 04-11-2009 11:10pm

I'm at work posting this (yes i'm a part time farmer) via mobile and cant quote some of the posts.

I read all of the contributions and cant disagree with any of the points regarding bungalow blight. I still feel no shame for building my own house on my own land and would fight for the right of any one in my position to do the same. Offaly county council imposed conditions on my planning, had to build house in keeping with the style of the area, had to use natural slate, no dormer windows etc, had to maintain the natural road side boundry. I also had to install a treatment system for my house and it had to be located in a part of the site out of the view of the main road. Believe me if all the houses in my area had to go through that the area would have been much improved.

Though planning requirements and a local relationship and need should be enforced. A lot of the sites sold in the locality in the last 5 years went to outsiders but this is now not happening as the council enforce the local need rule.

westtip · 04-11-2009 11:21pm

serfboard wrote: »

I think what we should do is to keep voting Fianna Fail back in - we can rely on them to do what's best for the nation.

Insanity: Constantly repeating the same pattern and expecting a different result.

Serf FF FG I don't think it will make any difference to the average TD/councillor in the counties most affected; all the same gombeens. We need to separate our legislative assembly from local influences - so that our legislators do not answer to the parish pump, Da People may not like it - but do you know what sometimes local democracy just doesn't work.

medoc wrote: »

I'm at work posting this (yes i'm a part time farmer) via mobile and cant quote some of the posts.

I read all of the contributions and cant disagree with any of the points regarding bungalow blight. I still feel no shame for building my own house on my own land and would fight for the right of any one in my position to do the same. Offaly county council imposed conditions on my planning, had to build house in keeping with the style of the area, had to use natural slate, no dormer windows etc, had to maintain the natural road side boundry. I also had to install a treatment system for my house and it had to be located in a part of the site out of the view of the main road. Believe me if all the houses in my area had to go through that the area would have been much improved.

Though planning requirements and a local relationship and need should be enforced. A lot of the sites sold in the locality in the last 5 years went to outsiders but this is now not happening as the council enforce the local need rule.

If what you say about Offaly is true then why can't we have some level of consistency across the country, Sligo is full of pop up mansions/barracks throughout the county that are so incongruous it is untrue, your post is a good one and very informative - but as I said above in a post a few posts back - we do now need to address the mess that has been created - what can we now do to make these one offs places fit to live in - and what restrictions can we place on future one offs? Solving the social problem that has been created needs to be addressed - and believe me this is every bit as much a social problem as well as an infrastrutural/environmental issue. There really is a need for direction from government on this matter - will we get it - I doubt it.

serfboard · 05-11-2009 4:28pm

westtip wrote: »

We need to separate our legislative assembly from local influences - so that our legislators do not answer to the parish pump

Indeed. Introduce a list system like they have in other countries. However, this would require a referendum which will be proposed by nobody and opposed by everybody.

Mike 1972 · 29-12-2009 10:56pm

serfboard wrote: »

Indeed. Introduce a list system like they have in other countries.

If you really want to get rid of parish pump politics a list system on its own isint going to do it. Youd need to make the entire country into a single c.100 seat constituency. Admittidely there would be no independent TD's under such a system but whether this would actually be a bad thing is highly debatable.

tipptop2008 wrote: »

1) Saying it costs more to connect ESB in the rural areas is simply wrong - the ESB wires pass on every road in the countryside and has done for decades, and therefore passes each new house;

Do you have any idea how electricity distribution systems work ?

If hundreds of one off houses connect to a network originally designed to serve a handful of rural farmsteads then someone* either has to invest a tidy sum upgrading said network or your lights go dim when the neighbours put their kettle on.

* Ireland being Ireland "someone" = not the people actually responsible for the causing the problem !

Slattery86 · 17-01-2010 3:02am

I have absolutely nothing against rural housing or so-called “one off housing”, but I have to agree with some others on the rubbish quality of housing in rural Ireland in recent decades. But then again, as a townie, I don’t think it’s fair to pass judgement as most of the modern constructed environment in Irish towns and suburbs is nothing to write home about in terms of architecture, or homeliness. Housing in rural Ireland followed the same pattern as urban/ built-up Ireland during the post-60s era in that poor quality exteriors and paper thin interiors (walls in particular) replaced earlier building forms, which although built in a much poorer time and place were certainly of better form and character than modern homes.

However, it probably had as much to do with the loss of old craft skills (indoors and outdoors) and the over-commercialisation of building materials, along with the lack of a provided alternative manual for housing design- than with some malaise or destructiveness on behalf of people in rural Ireland. People wanted houses, so where were the alternatives regarding design and layout to be found? The critiques could at least look at it from that perspective, instead of berating bungalow bliss etc. And that’s not even going into the area of gardening, which between hedges, trees, shrubbery and flowers can make any property seem attractive or secluded. Plus it adds value to a property at the end of the day.

Most countries throughout history have had dispersed and nucleated settlements. Dispersed settlements dominated in most parts of the world, including Europe until the Industrial revolution centralised factories into the towns and cities during the 19th century. The same thing can be said of England- the first country to industrialise, which along with countries like America, Germany, France etc was as dispersed as modern Ireland. As for the idea of criticising factories in the countryside, how many of you are aware of the fact that the original mills and factories in England and America were in fact in rural areas! In fact when I go to England, I can see them dotted all over the rural north and midlands.

Then there’s the argument regarding nature. If anything most gardens- providing the residents maintain the garden with plants and greenery- contains more bio-diversity than the large, barren and chemical-sprayed fields of most modern agricultural landscapes. Houses, providing the gardens are well-planted can in fact be indicators of attracting insects, birds etc.

There is much arrogance (and once again I say it as a townie) that a country “must” urbanise, as that is what apparently most modern western nations, and increasingly most emerging third world nations have done. But even now, the global urban/ rural ratio is only tipping 50-50%, and that’s in a world of 6.7 billion. Most of the great cities we all love like New York, London, Paris, Chicago, Berlin, Rome, Barcelona etc hadn’t even a population of 1 million in 1800. It was only in the 1820’s that London surpassed the 1 million mark. Most cities and towns in England, Europe and America at this time would barely pass the mark today as most of them only had about 10-50,000 people (e.g. Philadelphia the biggest city in 18th century America only had a population of 20,000). And yet even though the urban/rural ratio was about 20-80% in 1900, and even further down at 10-90% in 1800- this had done no damage to, nor did it curtail the development of the great cities of Europe and America.

So this idea that we “must” urbanise to achieve a better spatial and economic arrangement is a fallacy, because throughout most of human history, people have lived far apart and removed (aka dispersed settlements) whether in hunting packs or in farming communities- with a few towns and cities providing services and manufacturing. In fact that is about the only reason they developed, organically- so that they could develop goods and services to provide for the rest of the population. It worked back then, and even if the majority of western civilisation were to return to the countryside, it would not infer the collapse of society.

Also the advent of (i) solar power/ panels, (ii) rainwater harvesting systems (iii) more efficient septic tanks that pose little or no danger to aquifers (iv) mobile broadband, and most importantly (v) the potential to one day work from home for many people- have altogether meant that the system of the majority living in clustered settlements of towns and cities of thousands and millions, so as to be near work and services has come to an end. For the first time in generations, thanks to technology many people will now be able to return to the countryside. Then again even in 1900, most of the world including the industrialised nations of Europe and America were predominately rural, so it’s not as if it occurred immediately during the 19th century. If anything this pattern of movement continued up until the present day.

Also to say that our cities and towns will suffer as a result of rural development is in and of itself pure nonsense as the best cities and towns (also the most attractive ones) were built during eras of human history when society was predominately rural. Just as a city of a million (even two million) is nothing by modern global standards- neither is the concept of packing people into skyscraper apartments and block tower flats on brownfield sites, considered to be an anomaly when it most definitely is. The technology of the 19th century (aka factories, production lines etc) was the factor that demanded people move to the cities from the farms, towns and villages, whereas today the reverse is occurring- technology is providing the opportunity for people to return to live and work in rural areas. It also wouldn’t surprise me if in the years ahead we see a revival of small-scale artisan crafts, as a source of extra personal income that can then be traded over the internet.

It is perfectly possible for rural repopulation, and for prosperous and attractive cities to occur side-by-side. In fact the former complimented the latter throughout most of human history as there wasn’t the population pressure on urban areas to consider. Florence, the renaissance city par-excellence in the history books barely scratched 100,000 at its prime, and yet look at what a remarkable place it is. Now look at some of the cities with 2-5 million today, and they are far from utopian. They are over-grown and bursting at the seams. Humans were never intended to live in these settlements by a majority. Our cities and towns will always prosper regardless of what anybody says (once again, I’m a townie). The neglect of Irish towns probably has as much to do with high property prices over the last 20 years, than of been the result of houses been constructed in open countryside.

As for the English countryside, it has been forbidden for habitation since at least the Atlee years when the post war planning system came into effect. So it is not correct to point towards the English system, as it is artificially determining settlement patterns, and has been doing so since 1947. However, this has not stopped 80% of the English people, whose nation was the very first to industrialise- to wish to live, and work in the countryside (whether open countryside or rural village) by a majority of four fifths. There are also re-ruralisation movements and tendencies in large parts of Europe and North America also. And what is wrong with any of this? Yes out of a population of 50 million in a country only 50% bigger than Ireland, the idea of 40 million people wanting to live in a rural area may cause problems initially, but even these could be worked out, and settled over time considering the five points I made above regarding technological breakthroughs. So if most people in Ireland or England want to live in the countryside (and probably the majority of people in America and Europe) and wish to lead rural lifestyles, because technology will allow for this- why should they be denied this opportunity? Farming land is abundant, and food yields are growing with each passing year thanks to more efficient farming, so it is hardly a threat to the food supply.

The world, thanks to technology will probably rebalance the rural-urban ratio in the decades ahead, so there should be no rush in this country towards urbanisation- because the form of movement advocated by many proponents is out of date in the 21st century. The industrial revolution and its need for the centralisation of the majority population is gone out of the window of history, and is now an irrelevant concept when considering population settlement.

Here is the link, just to prove my point about English settlement preferences (not those of the RIA, CPRE etc), and to prove that there isn’t some unique “Bull McCabe” tendency in the Irish people to concrete over the countryside (ironic giving that only 4% of Ireland is built up- even including urban gardens and parks). Read the links below.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1044699/80-cent-Britons-dream-escaping-rat-run-finding-spot-countryside.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1367956/Britons-hold-on-to-dream-of-rural-idyll.html

Amtmann · 18-01-2010 2:49pm

Slattery86 wrote: »

So this idea that we “must” urbanise to achieve a better spatial and economic arrangement is a fallacy, because throughout most of human history, people have lived far apart and removed (aka dispersed settlements) whether in hunting packs or in farming communities- with a few towns and cities providing services and manufacturing.

Not true at all. People still lived relatively close to each other throughout history, along ancient roadways and close to rivers, often in valleys, and almost always - in the case of 15th-century Germany at any rate - within a few kilometres of one of the 4,000 towns existing at that time.

There was more space because there were far fewer people (12,000,000 in the Holy Roman Empire in 1500). This does NOT mean that people lived far apart from each other, however. Quite the contrary. The landscape was still so untamed that people and tribes always lived in predictable places that were favourable to settlement and exploitation. It is why, throughout history, tribes and nascent kingdoms and empires always came into conflict despite their tiny populations: they simply couldn't avoid each other!
In any case, your scenario seems to suggest a sort of 'back to nature' type philosophy.

it would not infer the collapse of society

Since we all live within a technologized society that values services and the mass availability of all manner of commodities and resources, the question of how best to arrange our society - when these desires are fundamental - is addressed by a high degree of urbanisation. You move Europe's 500,000,000 citizens out of all urban spaces and into the countryside in a dispersed settlement pattern, then good luck to you. You will destroy everything - including society.

KevR · 26-01-2010 11:44am

The Frontline on RTE last night focused on the over-supply of houses in Ireland. The main focus was 'ghost' estates in towns and villages which were partly built, a few people bought houses in them but proper sewage facilities, streetlighting and other such things were never completed because the builders went bust.

A few different people brought up the issue of one-off housing in rural areas, saying it was unsustainable and was ruining the countryside. A couple of people even said some of the unoccupied one-off rural houses should be demolished and the land returned to agricultural use.

hipster2009 · 26-01-2010 12:05pm

Godge wrote: »

One-off housing is fine so long as the full economic cost is paid.

first example: You can get broadband in any urban location because those residents sacrificed their right to one-off housing and lived close together. The full cost of extending broadband to rural one-off housing should be charged to those who want that way of life.

second example: meals on wheels and care in the community work for those eldery living in close-knit communities. Those living in once-off housing should be charged for the service.

bottom line is that there is a charge to the state in providing servces to one-off housing (water, heating, electricity, telecommunications, social services etc.) No problem with anyone who wants the added benefits of one-off housing and rural amenities but they should also pay the additional costs.

I have broadband in a country area. We have our own well so its not costing "extra" for water its actually zero so by your logic we should be compensated because of this.We can now install a wind turbine for electricity. As regards sewerage etc ever hear of septic tanks etc.

When does the local authority pay for heating?

Life in the country is so much better and as somebody who grew up in a country area I can never live in an estate.
Nobody should be able to force me to live in a town or tell me what I cant build a house on my own land.

Meals on wheels! townies should do as in the country and look after their own elderly folks. Which is a lot easier to do when you are allowed to build a house beside your parents.

PS we do pay extra for connection to electricty, water etc.

hipster2009 · 26-01-2010 12:20pm

Mike 1972 wrote: »

If you really want to get rid of parish pump politics a list system on its own isint going to do it. Youd need to make the entire country into a single c.100 seat constituency. Admittidely there would be no independent TD's under such a system but whether this would actually be a bad thing is highly debatable.

Do you have any idea how electricity distribution systems work ?

If hundreds of one off houses connect to a network originally designed to serve a handful of rural farmsteads then someone* either has to invest a tidy sum upgrading said network or your lights go dim when the neighbours put their kettle on.End Quote]

"Do you have any idea how electricity distribution systems work? "
As technology moves on all networks have to be upgraded to keep up. nothing to do with one off houses!

PS find a map from 50 years ago and you will see that there were much more houses in rural areas then there are now. I can count the ruins of 20 old houses within three farms in my area which now have 8 houses in total at present!

KevR · 26-01-2010 1:29pm

hipster2009 wrote: »

We have our own well

You do, but does every one-off house? I would think that a lot don't.

hipster2009 wrote: »

Life in the country is so much better.

In your opinion.

hipster2009 wrote: »

Nobody should be able to force me to live in a town or tell me what I cant build a house on my own land.

So people should have the freedom to build whatever they want, wherever they want just because they own the land?

hipster2009 wrote: »

townies should do as in the country and look after their own elderly folks.

We do! Why is it always people from rural areas on the likes of the Frontline and Prime Time complaining that the elderly in rural areas are extremely isolated, have nobody calling, can't get out of their house when there's a bit of bad weather, can't go to the pub to socialise because the drink drive limit is so strict. You don't often hear similar complaints from people living in urban areas.

Amtmann · 26-01-2010 2:15pm

hipster2009 wrote: »

PS find a map from 50 years ago and you will see that there were much more houses in rural areas then there are now. I can count the ruins of 20 old houses within three farms in my area which now have 8 houses in total at present!

Well duh. All those people living in those shacks worked where they lived, or very close by. They didn't all have two or three cars per house tearing up the fabric of the L roads, either; and electricity and phone usage were WAY below modern usage rates, if they existed at all. The point is that in today's society, one off houses drain resources disproportionately and aren't sustainable.

marmurr1916 · 26-01-2010 4:03pm

Furet wrote: »

Well duh. All those people living in those shacks worked where they lived, or very close by. They didn't all have two or three cars per house tearing up the fabric of the L roads, either; and electricity and phone usage were WAY below modern usage rates, if they existed at all. The point is that in today's society, one off houses drain resources disproportionately and aren't sustainable.

There's a simple solution to this. Charge people in rural one-off housing the full economic cost of their electricity, water etc. - no cross-subsidies from urban areas.

Once people start getting €15k per year ESB bills, they'll soon cop on to just how expensive it is for urban dwellers to subsidise their lifestyle.

26-01-2010 4:14pm

marmurr1916 wrote: »

There's a simple solution to this. Charge people in rural one-off housing the full economic cost of their electricity, water etc. - no cross-subsidies from urban areas.

Once people start getting €15k per year ESB bills, they'll soon cop on to just how expensive it is for urban dwellers to subsidise their lifestyle.

Must remember this post the next time we hear about cost of upgrading an underground cable/pipe in the city!

Amtmann · 26-01-2010 4:19pm

The problem is that most politicians simply don't think about what one-off housing really means for the overall functioning of the state. They don't see it as a problem; instead, they take it as a given and see it as being as normal a thing as the Irish pub. At the risk of sounding elitist, many of our politicians aren't educated in the most desirable fields - philosophy, sociology, history, criminology, geography, planning, administration, etc.
I wonder what Mattie McGrath would say about your proposal, Marmurr. He wouldn't see the problem. His concern is about finding ways to make the unsustainable sustainable without even knowing that it's unsustainable in the first place!

hipster2009 · 26-01-2010 11:50pm

KevR wrote: »

You do, but does every one-off house? I would think that a lot don't.

In your opinion.

So people should have the freedom to build whatever they want, wherever they want just because they own the land?

We do! Why is it always people from rural areas on the likes of the Frontline and Prime Time complaining that the elderly in rural areas are extremely isolated, have nobody calling, can't get out of their house when there's a bit of bad weather, can't go to the pub to socialise because the drink drive limit is so strict. You don't often hear similar complaints from people living in urban areas.

Nobody mentioned build whatever they want wherever they want. just should have the right to build a home on their own land.

You should have looked at the news more carefully during the snow and seen the interview with the old woman in Tullow town saying how isolated she now feels towards when she lived in the country!

And it was more of people in urban areas who were complaining about not being able to get around in the bad weather.

hipster2009 · 27-01-2010 12:31am

Furet wrote: »

Well duh. All those people living in those shacks worked where they lived, or very close by. They didn't all have two or three cars per house tearing up the fabric of the L roads, either; and electricity and phone usage were WAY below modern usage rates, if they existed at all. The point is that in today's society, one off houses drain resources disproportionately and aren't sustainable.

You should go to one of these great urban areas you think are so great first thing in the morning and watch all of the two car families leave to tear up the "fabric of the roads" all the way to dublin.

So you agree with people who work on their farms being allowed to live on and build houses on the farms. And what shacks these were all stone houses.

and electricity and phone usage were WAY below modern usage rates, if they existed at all. The point is that in today's society, one off houses drain resources disproportionately and aren't sustainable.[/QUOTE]

What a bunch of crap. "way below modern usage rates" the single most stupid arguement ever.

Amtmann · 27-01-2010 1:01am

hipster2009 wrote: »

You should go to one of these great urban areas you think are so great first thing in the morning and watch all of the two car families leave to tear up the "fabric of the roads" all the way to dublin.

This is a little unclear. But it's more cost-effective to treat a single busy road than hundreds of L-roads annually.

So you agree with people who work on their farms being allowed to live on and build houses on the farms.

For the most part.

And what shacks these were all stone houses.

Crumbling and abandoned stone houses, often with rusty galvanised roofs (built in the 30s, 40s, and 50s) and shrouded by ivy, litter the countryside. By today's standards, many were primitive, excessively damp hovels. Some are used today as animal sheds.

I was raised in a one-off house, so this isn't exactly an unfamiliar subject to me. In the 80s there was one one-off house along our road - today there are over fifteen.

What a bunch of crap. "way below modern usage rates" the single most stupid arguement ever.

Why? Are you denying that more infrastructure has had to be provided in the past twenty years than was necessary "50 years ago"? And can you not see that the cost of provision for all this infrastructure, spread out thinly as it is because of the logistical issues presented by one-off housing, is disproportionately high when compared with urban areas? If you're going to argue against these basic truths then you needn't reply, because I certainly won't.

hipster2009 · 27-01-2010 1:09pm

Furet wrote: »

This is a little unclear. But it's more cost-effective to treat a single busy road than hundreds of L-roads annually.

For the most part.

Crumbling and abandoned stone houses, often with rusty galvanised roofs (built in the 30s, 40s, and 50s) and shrouded by ivy, litter the countryside. By today's standards, many were primitive, excessively damp hovels. Some are used today as animal sheds.

I was raised in a one-off house, so this isn't exactly an unfamiliar subject to me. In the 80s there was one one-off house along our road - today there are over fifteen.

Why? Are you denying that more infrastructure has had to be provided in the past twenty years than was necessary "50 years ago"? And can you not see that the cost of provision for all this infrastructure, spread out thinly as it is because of the logistical issues presented by one-off housing, is disproportionately high when compared with urban areas? If you're going to argue against these basic truths then you needn't reply, because I certainly won't.

Great way to try to end discussion when you know you are wrong!;)

Whats the point in highlighting the fact that houses built over 60 years ago are not as well built as houses today. However now that you have brought up this point you might want to look at the way many of the jigsaw houses in urban areas were thrown together in the last ten years.

Extra cost of providing all this infastructure it probably takes an extra 10 meters of wire to bring the electricty from the pole. All other services such as sewerage,water heatin are usually paid for by the person building the house.

"I was raised in a one-off house" Do I detect a bit of resentment or did someone else get the house.

Amtmann · 27-01-2010 3:12pm

hipster2009 wrote: »

"I was raised in a one-off house" Do I detect a bit of resentment or did someone else get the house.

Not a bit of resentment - I mentioned it merely to show that this issue isn't automatically town vs country.

KevR · 28-01-2010 1:12pm

http://www.galwaynews.ie/10925-farmers-association-assesses-road-damage-galway

Galway News wrote:

FARMERS ASSOCIATION ASSESSES ROAD DAMAGE IN GALWAY

January 28, 2010 - 8:18am

The Department of Transport has heard it will cost up to 30 million euro to fix over 6 thousand kilometres of road in the county.
The damage - caused by the recent freeze and floods - was assessed by the Irish Farmers Association as it seeks to have priority given to rural road repairs.
A damage report was undertaken on roads between Ballymoe and Clifden.
The IFA says this is of major concern to rural dwellers and farmers who need access to their land and animals.

The bit in bold is a joke surely? Priority should always be given to road repairs on the busiest routes regardless of whether the route is in an urban or rural area.

Why are the IFA taking it upon themselves to do the NRA's job anyway?

dubhthach · 28-01-2010 4:53pm

KevR wrote: »

http://www.galwaynews.ie/10925-farmers-association-assesses-road-damage-galway

The bit in bold is a joke surely? Priority should always be given to road repairs on the busiest routes regardless of whether the route is in an urban or rural area.

Why are the IFA taking it upon themselves to do the NRA's job anyway?

Interesting that County Galway alone has 6,000 km's of roads! I recall reading somewhere that on average there is 3 times as much length of road (all roads including bothareen's) per head of population in Ireland compared to average on the continent.

28-01-2010 8:28pm

KevR wrote: »

http://www.galwaynews.ie/10925-farmers-association-assesses-road-damage-galway

The bit in bold is a joke surely? Priority should always be given to road repairs on the busiest routes regardless of whether the route is in an urban or rural area.

Why are the IFA taking it upon themselves to do the NRA's job anyway?

It depends on the type of damage as well, a small pothole on a primary route shouldn't precide over a collapsed embankment on a minor road that has reduced the width of the road to the point that it's dangerous for vehicles to pass.

KevR · 12-02-2010 10:29pm

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0212/housing.html

RTE News wrote:

Govt urged to restrict one-off housing

Friday, 12 February 2010 16:17

The Irish Planning Institute has claimed an unsustainable proliferation of one-off houses is undermining the vibrancy of rural towns and villages as well as causing serious environmental impacts.
IPI President Gerry Sheeran said there has been no decline in the rate of construction of one-off houses since the Government guidelines were updated in 2005.
Speaking at an awards ceremony in Dublin, Mr Sheeran called for these guidelines to be radically overhauled, as there are now 450,000 one-off houses in Ireland.
Advertisement

Despite the economic crash, Mr Sheeran said 12,000 individual houses were completed last year, which is 3,000 more than was constructed within residential developments.
He argued that one-off housing was siphoning away residential development from towns and villages because they cost the State three times more to service.
Mr Sheeran contended one-off housing was causing serious environmental impacts, both visually and on groundwater and biodiversity, and this was unsustainable in terms of traffic generation and emissions.
He call for the 2005 Sustainable Rural Housing Guidelines to be radically reviewed to end what he called 'the proliferation of urban generated housing in the countryside'.

Yikes!

serfboard · 12-02-2010 10:56pm

I'm not sure if the Irish Planning Institute has made this kind of public pronouncement before, but I'm glad to see them say it publicly.

Of course, we know that FF won't do anything to change the rules/laws. Sure, how else would they get elected? :rolleyes:

Amtmann · 13-02-2010 9:30am

Four-hundred-and-fifty-thousand: Almost as big as Belfast, 3 times bigger than Cork, about 6.5 times bigger than Limerick and Galway, and 9 times bigger than Waterford. What have we done?

13-02-2010 9:52am

Furet wrote: »

What have we done?

We have created a situation where developers built crappy small houses in the wrong places and sell them at high prices which ment it was cheaper for people to build their own (bigger & better) houses on their own land.

Also county councils were "selling" planning permission as a major source of income.

edit: amazingly there are four one-off under construction within walking distance of my house right now!

13-02-2010 9:58am

serfboard wrote: »

I'm not sure if the Irish Planning Institute has made this kind of public pronouncement before, but I'm glad to see them say it publicly.

Of course, we know that FF won't do anything to change the rules/laws. Sure, how else would they get elected? :rolleyes:

The 2005 guidelines were largely overridden by local councellors lobbying for "private developers", I know personally of several planning applications that were helped through the planning system.

Amtmann · 13-02-2010 11:07am

TOO MANY one-off houses are still being built in rural Ireland despite a direction given five years ago to local authorities to restrict permission for their construction, the Irish Planning Institute has said.
There had been “no decline” in the numbers of one-off houses since the sustainable rural guidelines were introduced in 2005, institute president Gerry Sheeran said.
“In 2009, there were 12,000 individual houses completed and only 9,000 houses constructed within residential developments.”
Since 1971, the number of one-off houses has increased from 156,000 to 450,000, he said.
The proliferation of one-off housing was undermining rural towns by “siphoning” residential development from them, he said.
Their construction was damaging the environment, polluting groundwater and increasing C02 emissions by increasing car usage.
They also contributed to creating a social imbalance where poorer people stayed in the towns while the wealthy built large houses in the countryside.
The guidelines for local authorities must be reviewed to provide “clear, consistent and unambiguous” direction on the exceptional cases where one-off housing should be allowed, he said.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/0213/1224264353238.html

Slattery86 · 13-02-2010 12:51pm

KevR wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0212/housing.html

Yikes!

That article is a bit over the top. First of all, so what if it's "urban generated rural housing", shouldn't people have the right to live and work where they want without the state getting involved or refusing to allow people this basic right.

Second of all, why is most of the criticism coming from Dublin, that doesn't make sense because the people who actually live in thcountryside are happy with the situation. As for costing more to service, don't the country people pay large connectiton fees to the national grid for all services?

As for the bit about visual obtrusion on the landscape, well that's reeking of snobbery and elitism, e.g. the plebs and their bad taste etc.

This is what you get when you have the greens and other elite cliques in the Dail, all out attacks on peop[les property rights, and smears to follow.

Slattery86 · 13-02-2010 1:02pm

Furet wrote: »

Four-hundred-and-fifty-thousand: Almost as big as Belfast, 3 times bigger than Cork, about 6.5 times bigger than Limerick and Galway, and 9 times bigger than Waterford. What have we done?

In the middle of the 19th century, there were 9 million people in Ireland and only 100,000 people in Dublin, therefore there must have been anywhere between 1-2 million houses in the countryside (if not more).

13-02-2010 1:13pm

Mr Sheeran contended one-off housing was causing serious environmental impacts, both visually and on groundwater and biodiversity, and this was unsustainable in terms of traffic generation and emissions.

He's got this bit wrong, most rural sites are replacing agricultural monocultured fields, a bit of sensitive garden design and the biodiversity is greatly enhanced.

Depending on the type of development, it's also easy to make it blend into the countryside with some tree planting.

Traffic is a problem, there's no avoiding that issue!

As mentioned further up, a better solution would have been to have local authorities zone an area of land for housing in a suitable location*, laid services and sold individual sites for people to build their individual homes.

Such a plan would have been doomed to failure as there are too many landowners on the make in the councils to support such an idea.

*Adjacent to good roads etc.

13-02-2010 1:18pm

Slattery86 wrote: »

In the middle of the 19th century, there were 9 million people in Ireland and only 100,000 people in Dublin, therefore there must have been anywhere between 1-2 million houses in the countryside (if not more).

Most were farmers and living off the land - before the famine!

Mechanisation of agriculture has severly depopulated rural areas everywhere in Europe except Ireland. e.g where I lived in England the village (& sorrunding areas) the population in 1920 was 2000 or so in 1980 it was just under 1000.

Amtmann · 13-02-2010 1:51pm

Slattery86 wrote: »

In the middle of the 19th century, there were 9 million people in Ireland and only 100,000 people in Dublin, therefore there must have been anywhere between 1-2 million houses in the countryside (if not more).

If that is supposed to justify the high level of people living in the countryside today, then it is a completely and mindblowingly unhistorical statement. The past is another country.

serfboard · 13-02-2010 2:16pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The 2005 guidelines were largely overridden by local councellors lobbying for "private developers", I know personally of several planning applications that were helped through the planning system.

Indeed. It makes sense to have guidelines that can be over-ridden by local councillors.:rolleyes:

Slattery86 wrote: »

shouldn't people have the right to live and work where they want without the state getting involved or refusing to allow people this basic right.

Fine. You don't want the state to get involved? Don't come asking the state for money to fix the roads which get torn to sh1t with all the extra traffic so.

Don't go looking for the state to subsidise your group water scheme and then whinging about how poor the quality is.

And finally, don't whinge about the lack of broadband in rural areas because cash-strapped Eircom won't go up every boreen in the country.

lukejr · 14-02-2010 4:05pm

serfboard wrote: »

Fine. You don't want the state to get involved? Don't come asking the state for money to fix the roads which get torn to sh1t with all the extra traffic so.

Don't go looking for the state to subsidise your group water scheme and then whinging about how poor the quality is.

And finally, don't whinge about the lack of broadband in rural areas because cash-strapped Eircom won't go up every boreen in the country.

Excellent, would add that our ESB prices are higher too as they have to provide and maintain a powerline to even the most remote house. People can live where they want but should be asked to pay extra for power, water, phoneline/broadband, road tax, school transport and public transport. Not to mention the pollution to our water table due to the large number of unregulated septic tanks in Ireland.

The best way to discourage one off houses is to charge a big tax for each planning permission sought if it's a one off development, you can live where you want, but you'll pay for the privilege not the general tax payer.

14-02-2010 4:49pm

lukejr wrote: »

The best way to discourage one off houses is to charge a big tax for each planning permission sought if it's a one off development, you can live where you want, but you'll pay for the privilege not the general tax payer.

It's such a tax that's been funding councils for the past few years, the "development charge" that has to be paid on commencement of construction is in the order of €6-9000 some councils charge even more.

It turned into a money spinner rather than a deterrant!

L1011 · 14-02-2010 6:03pm

Those in de schticks do pay a little more for their ESB standing charge also, but nowhere near enough to justify the costs...

16-02-2010 2:07pm

In a nutshell

One-off housing=fundamental right if you own the land.

Urbanising the population=force feeding conformism on them. Centuries away from the need to do that. Estates should be able to save by sharing bills for shared amenities.

16-02-2010 2:51pm

Just for the record;

There are currently four one-off under construction within walking distance of where I live, this represents growth of about 4% relative to about 100 completed houses within the same area.

Out of this 100 houses I would guess that about half are less than 10 years old, out of the remainder only about ten are more than 50 years old, of the remaining 40 houses built in the 60-90s about half of them are replacing old houses.

Amtmann · 16-02-2010 2:57pm

One need not be in favour of 'urbanising' a population, as in having people all live in big towns or cities. If we could even concentrate people in villages or small towns, German style, that would be a massive improvement. It would improve the quality of rural life in many ways and it would mean that you could dramatically improve routes, transport and communications links, etc.

16-02-2010 3:20pm

Furet wrote: »

One need not be in favour of 'urbanising' a population, as in having people all live in big towns or cities. If we could even concentrate people in villages or small towns, German style, that would be a massive improvement. It would improve the quality of rural life in many ways and it would mean that you could dramatically improve routes, transport and communications links, etc.

In the UK (England mainly) rural one-off housing has been effectivly banned since the 1940's, any rural development has been within the boundaries of existing communities or around them.
The only exception to this has been "bungalow gobbling" where an old house is bought with the sole purpose of replacing it!

I suspect that Ireland is unique in this "free for all" respect, almost all other European countries limit developments in the country to those who need to live there or by not subsidising the costs of providing services.

lukejr · 16-02-2010 4:26pm

Deleted User wrote: »

One-off housing=fundamental right if you own the land.

Not if your fundamental right is infringing on other peoples right, which one off does.

People have a right not to have their taxes spent on serving the one off house, their water polluted due to the use of septic tanks, their view destroyed by bungalow blitz, higher utility bills due.

Deleted User wrote: »

It turned into a money spinner rather than a deterrant!

I'd be in favor of removing councils, and create a central location for all council activities, with vastly reduced numbers of staff and elected officials. Would also reduce local corruption. Would save the tax payer a fortune.

In the past six months the councils have proven they can't do their job, giving planning permissions in flood plains, not being able to grit the roads, and no standards for road maintenance which have caused them to fall apart after a week of frost.

One-off houses: Good or Bad?

Comments