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?

1356789

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭serfboard


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 8,021 ✭✭✭Mike 1972


    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.
    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 !


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 Slattery86


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭hipster2009


    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.
    :p

    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭hipster2009


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    We have our own well
    You do, but does every one-off house? I would think that a lot don't.
    Life in the country is so much better.
    In your opinion.
    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?
    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann



    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭marmurr1916


    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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭hipster2009


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭hipster2009


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 60 ✭✭hipster2009


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    "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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


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


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,284 ✭✭✭dubhthach


    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.




  • 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.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,110 ✭✭✭KevR


    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!


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,663 ✭✭✭serfboard


    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:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    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?




  • 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!




  • 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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,093 ✭✭✭Amtmann


    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


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 Slattery86


    KevR wrote: »

    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25 Slattery86


    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).




  • 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.


  • Advertisement


  • 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.


Advertisement