Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
One-off houses: Good or Bad?
Comments
-
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.0 -
Ernest Important Illness 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.0 -
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.0 -
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!0 -
Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 67,501 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 64490
Those in de schticks do pay a little more for their ESB standing charge also, but nowhere near enough to justify the costs...0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
Shawn Tasty Pekinese 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.Ernest Important Illness 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.0 -
Advertisement
-
One of houses are ok if you build a house that is self sustainable. Because in glittered houses over the country side comes with a price, damage to the natural ecosystems and natural cycles of earth. To many off houses can create sewerage problem, rubbish, traffic problem where no infastructure is in place and so on.
If people had common sense and wanted to live in nature they need to learn to live with nature. i.e recycling, building proper skeptic tanks facilities, building eco friendly homes, building renewable sources of electricty and so on.
To be allowed to build a "one" of house, you have have to be the "one" to ensure you are totally responsible for the plot of land you are living on, not just inisde closed doors but at least 100 feet surrounding your home.0 -
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.
Could we not factor into this argument the simple fact that most Irish towns and villages at this stage are as ugly as sin. It does not make sense to make comparisons with continental nations like Germany, Italy, France etc because we do not have towns like they do thanks to ridiculous zoning laws, hence the housing estates and industrial estates on the edge of every town in Ireland. Everything from the width of the house, the height of the house, the distance from the street, fire access, minimum parking requirements etc means that every town in Ireland looks the same. You also cannot start a business or craft/ small industry in a restidential area, nor can you build above two stories in most cases.
Plus most Irish towns and villages are ratruns for traffic. Put those two factors together, (a) that people wouldn't live on our town main streets because of the traffic volumes and lack of facilities, and (b) not to mention the same boring, zoned regulated housing types in housing estates, its no wonder people don't want to live in them. I've been in Italy, France and some other parts of Europe, and I'll admit that their towns are beautiful for the most part. I cannot say the same thing about most Irish towns (e.g. Navan). Thanks to red tape it is illegal to build anything BUT housing estates, industrial estates etc, so the idea that we can compare Irish and continental towns and villages is nonsensical. It is illegal in Ireland to build anything but sterile, ugly, boring lego blocks in Ireland, and that includes attractive towns and main streets.0 -
I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that your argument applies to all Irish towns - yes, there are a large number (particularly in the midlands for a range of reasons) that are pretty grim, but you'll find relatively attractive towns right across the country, each with their own individual charms. Off the top of my head and just mentioning places I've been in the last while, I'd be happy to live in Clonakilty, Bandon, Midleton, Clonmel, New Ross, Kilkenny (yes, it's a town), Carlow (ish), Newbridge, Naas, Wexford, Killarney, Castlebar ... and those are just the towns, there are hundreds of villages that are lovely places to live - provided they're relatively close to cities or larger towns.
Secondly, just because some towns or villages are not particularly pleasant isn't a strong argument to give up on concentrating population in urban areas of a range of sizes - rather we just need to be better at urban and regional planning, architecture and transport planning.
The latest Waterford CDP is interesting in that regard - many LAs are well on top of their brief, if their elected members would allow them get on with their job. All that's needed now is a new set of rural planning guidelines ...0 -
One offs kyboshed.
The EPA has massively tightened requirements for percolation tests and areas which would indicate that a one off in the west needs a full sewage treatment plant from now on....not just a septic tank.
This is the original report
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/advice/water/wastewater/keegan_report_web.pdfSubsoil characteristics Minimum requirements
Minimum depth of unsaturated permeable subsoil below base of all percolation trenches for septic tank systems, i.e. minimum depth of unsaturated subsoil to bedrock and the water table
1.2 m
Minimum depth of unsaturated permeable subsoil below the base of the polishing filter for secondary treatment systems, i.e. minimum depth of unsaturated subsoil to bedrock and the water table
0.9 m
1 Greater depths/thicknesses may be required depending on the groundwater protection responses (Annex
.0 -
The industrial revolution and its impeding aftermath is done and dusted with, and thanks to ICT and telecommunications technology we will see the gradual decentralisation of work, industry and commerce, returning again to a pre-industrial (mid/ late 19th century – recently) pattern of life and work from the home and small workplaces. This is gradually occurring all over the Western world. Mass-urbanisation in Europe and America was chiefly the result of economic change – the centralisation of industry and economic activity into large towns and cities; the enclosure movement in England and Ireland; the eradication of the small farmer and cottier classes throughout Europe as a result of cheaper produce exported into the continent from the 19th century American Midwest – along with many other factors. These were the same people who had to move into the then emerging industrial cities in Europe, or immigrate to American cities such as New York and Chicago.
Not forgetting that the most beautiful cities and urban areas throughout history were built and created more often as a means in themselves, and probably for the simple purpose of creating attractive living areas. Industrialisation, and ironically mass-urbanization created some of the ugliest, most uninviting human habitats and urban areas in living history.
First of all the emerging cities (in most parts of the world around the 1870s and earlier in places like England) were havens for disease, smut, smog, vermin, sewage etc, and then in response to these conditions most of the English speaking world introduced paranoid planning laws and zoning codes separating different uses and activities – which have remained with us ever since, and continue to distort our living areas. Urbanisation as an end in itself (which is what many people here seem to be calling for) led firstly to grim living conditions in industrial cities, and secondly to monotonous, sterile, placeless towns and cities as a result of rigid red tape enforcement from the planning boards.
Urbanisation, which occurred organically and in nations that were predominately rural created many of the cities we like today – Paris, Washington, Barcelona, Florence, London, Rome etc. Many of the cities created through mandatory urbanisation (whether centralization of work and machinery in the 19th century, or by town planners throughout the 20th century) such as Detroit, Birmingham, Pittsburgh in the 19th century or the new towns created in many western nations after WWII are widely detested.
Countries such as France have among the most beautiful cities and large towns in the world, and yet until recently this was still a rural nation (and still is in some parts). Countries which bundled people into large towns and cities such as America and England created some of the worst living spaces in history. Enforced urbanization is actually contrary to the well being of cities. Nor are rural settlement patterns a threat to cities in any shape or form. So there is no logic behind trying to socially engineer and herd people into cities, when they don’t need be there – the industrial era is over, and thus the centralisation of work.
It should also be noted that the 1947 Town and country act introduced into Britain (and its form of planning adopted by many countries afterward, including Ireland in the 1960s), which prevented an owner of land thereafter, whether rural or urban based from building on it without permission – actually came about as a measure to protect and maintain farming land after the food shortages and rationing during the war years. Oddly enough they have remained on the statute books, and god only knows they are probably behind much of England’s run down city centres, post-war New towns and lonely and empty countryside. Yet some people can’t see the logic in these points, or the merit in abolishing such unnecessary restrictions, wherever they come about.
When we develop solar/ wind power, and other alternative practices, funding and sustaining rural settlements will be no problem and out of the question – and we are getting close to that time. Technology, whether computers, alternative energy, better sewage/ water treatment systems will allow for decentralised living, and as a result would also remove a lot of the population and resource pressures imposed on modern cities. It will soon be possible to live, and probably even work in villages or the countryside, so I think its pointless to try and force everybody into Dublin. The centralisation of population and resources is no longer necessary, technology which was the initial reason for industrialisation and centralisation of the workforce has now broken this pattern, thus allowing for decentralised living. Cities and large towns will also benefit from this movement in other ways. If people want to live in the countryside, let them. After all they don’t try and stop us from living in towns or cities, so why should we dictate to them in turn?
Whether we like it not, people want to live in attractive and homely places and they will not go somewhere that they don’t feel comfortable in, or to a place that doesn’t have the above mentioned attributes. The Irish countryside is beautiful, as are our small villages, the same cannot be said of the shagpiles that constitute most built-up areas in modern Ireland – hence the reluctance for many to live there, and the decision to build in the countryside instead. For instance what’s the incentive for living in let’s say Navan or Blanchardstown when you can get a property in somewhere like rural Wicklow for close to half the price with a sufficient garden included and beautiful views of the surrounding landscape? None is the answer.
Also this idea of herding everybody into built-up areas for the sake of public transport provision is a bit silly as most of these people own their own cars. Nor should bus services determine living patterns. Such thinking in fact reeks of socialism.0 -
Sponge Bob wrote: »One offs kyboshed.
The EPA has massively tightened requirements for percolation tests and areas which would indicate that a one off in the west needs a full sewage treatment plant from now on....not just a septic tank.
This is the original report
http://www.epa.ie/downloads/advice/water/wastewater/keegan_report_web.pdf
Most private builders/home owners are doing that already, after all we don't want our own gardens ponding with ****!0 -
Slattery86 wrote: »thanks to ICT and telecommunications technology we will see the gradual decentralisation of work.
ICT and telecommunications, this is where urban living is the only way to go for quality high speed broadband. You won't get a fiber-to-cabinet link in rural Ireland for this, wireless speeds will always be a generation or two behind a physical connection.Slattery86 wrote: »Such thinking in fact reeks of socialism.
If you live in rural Ireland (one off house) your phoneline, electricity, water, roads, road gritting, broadband, school transport and public transport is all subsidised by the tax payer. These services should only be provided where the demand exists, supply and demand: good all capitalism at work, not socialism.
Sure you can live where you want, but don't go running to the government looking for the tax payer to subsidies your living, live on your own and pay the true cost of providing the service to you.0 -
thanks to ICT and telecommunications technology we will see the gradual decentralisation of work, industry and commerce, returning again to a pre-industrial (mid/ late 19th century – recently) pattern of life and work from the home and small workplaces
Sorry, but there is practically no evidence to suggest that this is the case on the type of scale you are suggesting. True, there was a flurry of speculation in the mid 1990s about how ICTs were going to lead to the "Death of Distance" (Frances Cairncross's book), but like so much from that period about how the internet was going to change everything, it turned out to be untrue. Yeah, the internet changes economic geographies, but on nowhere near the scale you are suggesting.
The city is and will remain the most suitable organisational form for industry, regardless of whether that industry is building ships or software, for a whole load of reasons around increasing returns to scale, and internal and external economies of scale. Agglomeration works, in simple terms, for a range of human and organisational reasons, not just around the efficient provision of shared or communally provided services and infrastructure, but also commercially provided services to and between industry. Moreover, there are a number of other human reasons why people need to see and meet each other to do business.
On a national level, just look at the maps of computer use as a percentage of the population - in fact, just look at how closely the A and B socio-economic groups correlate to the major urban areas. To suggest that the centuries old linkage between economic activity and urbanism is going to be unilaterally broken because of this here interweb is very far fetched.
All of that said, it's a safe assumption that the urban form will continue to change over the coming decade; the economies of scale may modulate as a range of factors have their influence (oil/energy prices being a case in point), and so the optimal size for urban areas may change. But here's a scary thought - it may never again be as cheap in absolute terms to transport goods or people around. Renewable energy may be clean, but it is far from cheap, and the energy balance will never be as positive as is provided by oil. Quite simply, energy will never be as cheap again, unless someone invents cold fusion. How will rural Ireland, dominated in many areas by large swathes of urban generated rural housing, fare when oil prices really start to rise? The recent STRIVE Report from the ESRI has some really good work on mapping the carbon intensity of households - unsurprisingly the commuter belts are the most intense emitters of GHG.0 -
Sorry, but there is practically no evidence to suggest that this is the case on the type of scale you are suggesting. True, there was a flurry of speculation in the mid 1990s about how ICTs were going to lead to the "Death of Distance" (Frances Cairncross's book), but like so much from that period about how the internet was going to change everything, it turned out to be untrue. Yeah, the internet changes economic geographies, but on nowhere near the scale you are suggesting.
The city is and will remain the most suitable organisational form for industry, regardless of whether that industry is building ships or software, for a whole load of reasons around increasing returns to scale, and internal and external economies of scale. Agglomeration works, in simple terms, for a range of human and organisational reasons, not just around the efficient provision of shared or communally provided services and infrastructure, but also commercially provided services to and between industry. Moreover, there are a number of other human reasons why people need to see and meet each other to do business.
On a national level, just look at the maps of computer use as a percentage of the population - in fact, just look at how closely the A and B socio-economic groups correlate to the major urban areas. To suggest that the centuries old linkage between economic activity and urbanism is going to be unilaterally broken because of this here interweb is very far fetched.
All of that said, it's a safe assumption that the urban form will continue to change over the coming decade; the economies of scale may modulate as a range of factors have their influence (oil/energy prices being a case in point), and so the optimal size for urban areas may change. But here's a scary thought - it may never again be as cheap in absolute terms to transport goods or people around. Renewable energy may be clean, but it is far from cheap, and the energy balance will never be as positive as is provided by oil. Quite simply, energy will never be as cheap again, unless someone invents cold fusion. How will rural Ireland, dominated in many areas by large swathes of urban generated rural housing, fare when oil prices really start to rise? The recent STRIVE Report from the ESRI has some really good work on mapping the carbon intensity of households - unsurprisingly the commuter belts are the most intense emitters of GHG.
By that logic then, how are cities going to be powered in such an envisaged scenario, bar the invention and provision of Cold Fusion energy and power plants? How are all the goods, food and drink to be delivered around these large urban areas when energy is expensive, and the financial returns don’t outweigh the initial costs for delivery? Is it not the case that there would be more room in the countryside as opposed to central urban locations for laying solar panels, or land available for growing biodiesel fuels? If energy does get that scarce, what about the future of agriculture if farm machines don’t operate due to a shortage of fuel and energy, wouldn’t we need more people employed in these rural areas with regards to food and land resources – even with biodiesels at hand?
As for agglomeration, isn’t it not just as simple to either (a) live in the countryside and work in a village that has employment on a transport/ trade route, or (b) simply deliver goods through private courier to other locations around the country?
As for urban areas been better for the concentration of industry, that is not necessarily always true. Rural areas have abundant land and water resources, ideal for harnessing biodiesels, water/ hydro power – not to mention enough space for laying solar and wind farms etc. Also rural households, given that many have large gardens would have space to grow biodiesel crops, or gain access to them from local farms. No such options would be available to somebody living in the middle of a city.
And wouldn’t the tables not turn in such a scenario given that rural areas would have access to the resources and employment where power generation is concerned, and thus the wealth for its export, along with the jobs generated from it? Wouldn’t the commuters shoved all over Leinster (e.g. Drogheda, Navan, Cavan, Mullingar, Naas, Carlow etc) during the boom years also be stranded in such an energy crisis, and wouldn’t they as a result naturally try and develop local economies – as opposed to commuting to Dublin everyday? If anything, for one to say that commuters would continue commuting to Dublin everyday from every nook and cranny development that some developer threw up during the boom years, is unrealistic, and is quiet frankly preposterous.
But getting back to my initial point, wouldn’t it be easier to power smaller communities and households if such an energy crisis scenario ensued, as opposed to large urban areas? If anything in such an oil / energy shortage crisis, wouldn’t downsizing our operations not be a better road to go down? How are large cities to be powered, bar the provision and continuance of large productive energy plants? Fossil fuels like oil, coal and uranium will naturally peak and there isn’t enough land in cities to lay solar/ wind infrastructure – so if anything, does that argument not support the provision and development of smaller settlements in the future as opposed to large urban areas?0 -
Sorry Slattery, there are some fundamental misunderstandings in your post about the nature of energy, and particularly renewable energy.
?But getting back to my initial point, wouldn’t it be easier to power smaller communities and households if such an energy crisis scenario ensued, as opposed to large urban areas
Fundamentally, no. Now, obviously a question of extent arises - if we're talking stone age, yes, villages are the way to go, but in any more realistic case, it's actually a lot easier to provide energy to agglomerations of people, rather than to scattered communities.
Renewable electricity works because of the existence of an electricty grid - cities will continue to function for that simple reason, and the fact that it is cheaper to provide infrastructure to agglomerations of people than it is to spread that infrastructure provision across expanses of space. The same applies to renewable heating - more so in fact if you consider the possibilities offered by district heating.
Secondly, economies of scale apply in renewable energy - it makes far more sense to establish processing facilities on a large scale - rather than breaking up the process into smaller pieces. Large turbines provide electricity on a more cost effective basis than smaller ones, similarly large processing facilities are much more efficient (both in energy and absolute terms) than smaller ones.If anything, for one to say that commuters would continue commuting to Dublin everyday from every nook and cranny development that some developer threw up during the boom years, is unrealistic, and is quiet frankly preposterous.
I agree completely. It's far more likely that the 'commuter belt' would diminish considerably in size, with houses outside of that zone losing value quite rapidly. The key point, of course, being that jobs don't exist in these commuter/dormitory areas, and would not suddenly spring up, unless people were all of a sudden forced to accept dramatically lower standards of living.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 4915
Slattery86 wrote: »The industrial revolution and its impeding aftermath is done and dusted with, and thanks to ICT and telecommunications technology we will see the gradual
<snip>
For instance what’s the incentive for living in let’s say Navan or Blanchardstown when you can get a property in somewhere like rural Wicklow for close to half the price with a sufficient garden included and beautiful views of the surrounding landscape? None is the answer.
Also this idea of herding everybody into built-up areas for the sake of public transport provision is a bit silly as most of these people own their own cars. Nor should bus services determine living patterns. Such thinking in fact reeks of socialism.
Lot of points to rebut here, so let me get going.
Fundamentally your logic is flawed, because you're making the mistake of thinking that the reason people move to cities is because that's where the jobs are. That's *not* why they move there, though it does contribute.
Quite simply, people move to cities because it's where other people are. There is a massing effect that you get when you put people together in one place - you get more than you would if they were dispersed. Small business, services, clubs, sports teams etc. These are all non-existant, or very seldomly encountered, in isolated areas.
You seem to think that urbanisation only occurred to serve the needs of the industrial revolution - in that case why did the ancient world have major cities (Tenochichtlan, Rome, Athens, Constantinople, Jerusalem). They weren't industrial areas as industry as we know it didn't exist.
And the idea that companies and businesses no longer need to be in cities because of teleworking is nonsense. In that case why do companies like to locate in Silicon Valley or the centre of major cities - they say it's because other companies are there, so there's a support network, and the employees are nearby, so there's a labour pool. Teleworking is overstated and will never become the way the majority do business (I studied the concept in college).
I do agree that cities that grew just because of industry (most Chinese cities, Birmingham, Detroit etc.) are unpleasant - but the solution to this problem is for *more* people to move there, not less. I read a case study on Detroit which said that one of the biggest problems that city has is depopulation. Every time another few thousand people leave the inner city, a school closes, cafes and stores go out of business, and the city gathers less tax revenue. It's a downward spiral.
As for beautiful cities, I totally agree that they were created simply as nice places to live, not as ends in themselves - so then, let's create *more* of those, not less, which is what your ideas would lead us to. To get a city like Paris, you need very *rigid* planning control, not a free-for-all. When you look at Paris's wonderfully detailed buildings and quiet tree-lined avenues, you're looking at a place with very careful control of what could be built where and what it had to look like, covering several centuries. The exact opposite of what you think is the case.
People need to be stopped from living in the countryside when they have no reason to be there, because it is socially and environmentally destructive for them to do so - and always will be. Technology won't stop groundwater from being polluted, roads needing upgrades, broadband being poor quality, and deliveries taking a long time. They are fundamental problems that arise as a result of the physical difficulties associated with living far removed from everyone else.
Your comments about the dream of living in a valley in Wicklow and not needing public transport are laughable. What about when everyone else has the same idea as you? What happens to your view then? And the roads fill up with traffic? The jibe about socialism is pretty rich considering that people in one-offs are always the first to complain about a lack of publicly-funded infrastructure not being provided for them at a massive subsidy.
So, to summarise: People need to, and should, live in cities as it civilises society and enriches it; working at home will never become a mass phenomenon; rural dwellers live a lifestyle subsidised by city dwellers; yes, city dwellers have the right to complain about this and impose restrictions on where rural people can and cannot live; no, people do not have the inalienable right to live wherever they feel like.0 -
Good article here on the subject
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0317/1224266429096.html0 -
Slattery86 wrote: »Good article here on the subject
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0317/1224266429096.html
Good article but she's wrong. All it highlights is the price one has to pay to live away from civilisation.0 -
In my opinion people who are building one off houses do pay for the increased cost of services ( versus mass developments ) through huge development charges so nobody else has to pay for their "luxury" of living outside of a development.
Personally, I think that it makes for a richer social fabric if people live in a spread out fashion and not all pushed in together. Everything seems to be going the same way in life with mass conformity, less choice with small shops disapearing and being replaced by uk chains etc. Where will it end ? The logical conclusion of all of this conformity / uniformity is scary and in my opinion very different from the spirit of the Irish people which has always been a bit rebellious / eccentric and not afraid to be different.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4915
Yes - but people who do so don't pay that price.CerebralCortex wrote: »Good article but she's wrong. All it highlights is the price one has to pay to live away from civilisation.0 -
If you live in rural Ireland (one off house) your phoneline, electricity, water, roads, road gritting, broadband, school transport and public transport is all subsidised by the tax payer. These services should only be provided where the demand exists, supply and demand: good all capitalism at work, not socialism.
Sure you can live where you want, but don't go running to the government looking for the tax payer to subsidies your living, live on your own and pay the true cost of providing the service to you.
It's not just rural dwellers that have these subsidies - the same apply for urban locations.
On transport I'm not aware of the last time that any of the public transport companies operated at a profit. By your logic the biggest of these companies, Dublin Bus, is subsidising the commuter services for Bues Eireann. How can they when they run at a loss that must be made up by the (both urban and RURAL) taxpayers.
The thing that really annoys me about this debate is that people that live in housing estates & apartment blocks are telling me that I can't build a house in the village where I've lived for 25 years because I wasn't born there. All the various pieces of infrastructure are in place but if I don't wish to raise a family in an urban environment (the reason my parents decided to move out of Galway city) these people are telling me that I can't and I must conform.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4915
The level of subsidy is much higher for rural dwellers.antoobrien wrote: »It's not just rural dwellers that have these subsidies - the same apply for urban locations.
The thing that really annoys me about this debate is that people that live in housing estates & apartment blocks are telling me that I can't build a house in the village where I've lived for 25 years because I wasn't born there. All the various pieces of infrastructure are in place but if I don't wish to raise a family in an urban environment (the reason my parents decided to move out of Galway city) these people are telling me that I can't and I must conform.
We aren't talking about building houses in villages and towns - if that's what people were doing, there'd be no problem. We're talking about building outside these, in the middle of nowhere - and then expecting lots of public services to be available. All buildings should be adjacent to existing developed areas. It doesn't have to be part of an estate - a one-off house adjacent to a town is no problem at all.
What should be happening is that councils should be buying plots of land in or adjacent to towns and villages (including really small ones - no one is forcing you to live in a large town or city). If someone wants to build a one-off house, they buy one of these plots and organise having their house built themselves. They're in or next to a town, so services are available. Also this will result in more architectural diversity, as each house is built separately by different people. Finally, it doesn't result in the surrounding countryside being filled with MacMansions with an SUV parked on the gravel drive.0 -
Utter nonsesne. When an estate has to be built all the infrastructure has to be put in place - regardless of the urban or rural nature of the surrounds. I don't have figures but I'd wager that it's at least as expensive to bring services (electricity, phone etc) to a village or townland as it is to an estate. What you're really saying is that there's greater economies of scale forspacetweek wrote: »The level of subsidy is much higher for rural dwellers.
the construction companies and service providers because everything is closer together in an urban environment. And hopefully the councl doesn't have to pick up the tab for the road repairs.
By the loosest of definitions my family home is in neither a village or town. I'm not sure even if you could call it a townland (even though the growth of Galway city has now more or less brought us into suburbia now). However there are groups of one off houses in the area. I'd have to check but I believe that ESB make you pay the total cost of running cable (or at least my brother was told so several years ago when looking at a site) from the nearest pole, which I agree with, so no subsidy there.spacetweek wrote: »We aren't talking about building houses in villages and towns
I don't think that people that I've in the country side complain about not having services, what they complain about is the crap they have to put up with from service providers. For example, a wireless broadband provider that claims nationwide coverage (and will remain nameless) appearently doesn't care about people that are not in Dublin, despite advertising in most medium & large towns across Ireland. Instead of seeing the potential for business opportunity many service providers apparently attempt to scare rural customers away.spacetweek wrote: »We're talking about building outside these, in the middle of nowhere - and then expecting lots of public services to be available.
What's your definition of one off becuausespacetweek wrote: »All buildings should be adjacent to existing developed areas. It doesn't have to be part of an estate - a one-off house adjacent to a town is no problem at all.
See my original comment - I will not get planning permission to build a house. Rhetorical question - is that forcing me to live in a town? Yes, becuase I'd potentially have to wait years for a suitablespacetweek wrote: »What should be happening is that councils should be buying plots of land in or adjacent to towns and villages (including really small ones - no one is forcing you to live in a large town or city).
If someone wants to build a one-off house, they buy one of these plots and organise having their house built themselves. They're in or next to a town, so services are available.
house to come available in a rural area.
Also there is an economic bias against living outside the 'greater dublin area'. There is inadequate instrastructure across the country and howls of disapproval any time an infrastructure project is suggested outside dublin. The Galway city bypass is being held up by a group fronted by a dublin based solicitor, western rail corridor & atlantic road corridor have the potential to open up the western half of the country to development and industry but they were both decried as totally cost ineffective, as if we can recoup the cost of infrastructure in a few short years.
Your suggestion is crazy (not your fault), because it would mean the councils would have to do some work (which is the real reason why they dislike one off housing). When applications are made to councils they have to inspect sites for suitability etc. I know of several sites inspectors where two inspectors have been out and given different decisions (one to allow and
the other prevent development) citing the same citing the same reasons as justification for their decision (e.g one says inadequate sewage the other actually looks at the plans and examines the area
to see if sewage guidelines are met).
All this forces people into urban areas.
Don't we already have this? I mean liking what you see and where you see it is irrelevant to that point.spacetweek wrote: »Also this will result in more architectural diversity, as each house is built separately by different people.
Now you're just contradicting yourself. A MacMansion is an example of architectural diversity and as for the SUV I don't really care how someone spends their money. Besides, I'd rather see an SUV parked in a ruralspacetweek wrote: »Finally, it doesn't result in the surrounding countryside being filled with MacMansions with an SUV parked on the gravel drive.
drive, where the owner might actually use it for it's intended purpose, than used as an alternative to a people carriers (very common in most towns but particularly Dublin).0 -
you could never ban one off hosing, but you could bad septic tanks. This would mean that new housing would have to be within reach of a sewage scheme.0
-
Advertisement
-
Empire o de Sun wrote: »you could never ban one off hosing, but you could bad septic tanks. This would mean that new housing would have to be within reach of a sewage scheme.
It's not difficult, new rural one-offs have been effectvily banned in the UK since the 1950s. Nothing is built in the country without a very good reason, some get around by buying an existing building and replacing it.0
Advertisement