One-off houses: Good or Bad?

mysterious · 17-02-2010 2:35am

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.

Slattery86 · 22-02-2010 12:03am

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.

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.

Aidan1 · 22-02-2010 10:46am

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 ...

Sponge Bob · 22-02-2010 12:12pm

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

Subsoil 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 .

Slattery86 · 23-02-2010 6:05pm

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.

23-02-2010 6:31pm

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 ****!

lukejr · 23-02-2010 6:33pm

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.

Aidan1 · 23-02-2010 6:53pm

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.

Slattery86 · 24-02-2010 5:19pm

Aidan1 wrote: »

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?

Aidan1 · 24-02-2010 6:06pm

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.

spacetweek · 24-02-2010 7:01pm

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.

Slattery86 · 18-03-2010 2:49pm

Good article here on the subject

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0317/1224266429096.html

CerebralCortex · 23-03-2010 10:54am

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.

matrixroyal · 23-03-2010 11:11am

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.

spacetweek · 24-03-2010 3:07pm

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Good article but she's wrong. All it highlights is the price one has to pay to live away from civilisation.

Yes - but people who do so don't pay that price.

antoobrien · 24-03-2010 3:30pm

lukejr wrote: »

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.

spacetweek · 26-03-2010 5:40pm

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.

The level of subsidy is much higher for rural dwellers.

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.

antoobrien · 26-03-2010 6:29pm

spacetweek wrote: »

The level of subsidy is much higher for rural dwellers.

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 for
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.

spacetweek wrote: »

We aren't talking about building houses in villages and towns

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're talking about building outside these, in the middle of nowhere - and then expecting lots of public services to be available.

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: »

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's your definition of one off becuause

spacetweek 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.

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 suitable
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.

spacetweek wrote: »

Also this will result in more architectural diversity, as each house is built separately by different people.

Don't we already have this? I mean liking what you see and where you see it is irrelevant to that point.

spacetweek wrote: »

Finally, it doesn't result in the surrounding countryside being filled with MacMansions with an SUV parked on the gravel drive.

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 rural
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).

Empire o de Sun · 21-11-2010 7:13pm

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.

21-11-2010 7:28pm

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.

Triangle · 21-11-2010 7:46pm

I love reading this thread, and find it hard to stop myself screaming at the computer!

Yes the logic is sound, one off housing is bad. But from a quality of living i'd pick the 'bad' housing over high density concrete sprawl that makes more 'sense'

just look at knocknacarra (Galway) and Dublin itself as an idea of the irish management of urban quality developments. Seriously.... ...how can anyone stand over these types of developments while looking down on one off housing?

And yes, i live in a one off house in the countryside as my previous (Urban)house was overlooked by 6 other houses and we could wave at the neighbours behind us while being in our kitchen.
And as previous posters have pointed out, my living expenses are higher
because of this choice - petrol, water charges, extra bin charges, etc

logically, i had no choice but to live in the rural once of house if i wanted any bit of privacy.

L1011 · 21-11-2010 9:42pm

Your higher living expenses don't even begin to cover the higher cost of providing services to you. The pathetic difference in electricity standing charge doesn't cover the ESBs costs, etc.

ForiegnNational · 23-11-2010 1:05pm

MYOB wrote: »

Your higher living expenses don't even begin to cover the higher cost of providing services to you. The pathetic difference in electricity standing charge doesn't cover the ESBs costs, etc.

Whilst not defending one off properties, I am not quite sure how you can say you do not pay the higher costs of providing services to one off housing. If you care to check the ESB rates for single dwellings (table 2.2), you can see the connection charge is €1644 (standard connection).

Now as a guess, most new one off dwellings tend to be within 4 or 5 electricity poles of the existing network; therefore even taking in costs of 5 poles, plus cable, plus installation time... I still estimate that the ESB are making a profit on linking up one off houses.

If you continue to review the document, you will see prices quickly fall for each additional unit added (€1085 per property for 2 residences, €905 pp for 4, €814 pp for 8, etc). Therefore owners of one off properties ARE paying for the higher costs directly.

knipex · 23-11-2010 4:22pm

MYOB wrote: »

Your higher living expenses don't even begin to cover the higher cost of providing services to you. The pathetic difference in electricity standing charge doesn't cover the ESBs costs, etc.

Ahhhhh

That explains why all electriciy stations are built in urban areas............

knipex · 23-11-2010 5:10pm

spacetweek wrote: »

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.

That is a huge assumption to make. As a person who grew up in rural Ireland and moved to a city the only reason was for work. The same can be said for the vast majority of my peers.

spacetweek wrote: »

Small business, services, clubs, sports teams etc. These are all non-existent, or very seldom encountered, in isolated areas.

As I said I grew up in Rural Ireland. Back end of no where in West Clare.

We had squash clubs, GAA clubs, Soccer clubs, 2 youth clubs, a drama club, a debating club, a multitude of book clubs, I couldn't count how many card clubs etc not to mention farmers groups, community groups, water scheme etc. It was unknown for any household not to be involved in at least 2 or 3 of these clubs \ groups and if you had kids many more.

That was far from repeated when I moved to the city.

Small business did exist, large numbers of them everything from construction to farming to construction to small-scale manufacturing. Thats not the case now a planning guidelines no longer allow for these businesses. An old schoolmate of mien recently got refused planning for a small scale manufacturing facility as it was deemed unsuitable for a rural environment and was pointed in the direction of Shannon or Ennis.

spacetweek wrote: »

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.

These also were not cities in the modern sense. Look At their populations they were closer to market towns than anything else.

spacetweek wrote: »

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).

Again a huge assumption. Not all business require a city, or even a large urban centre. Smaller workforces dont require large labour pools and smaller businesses dont require huge support networks. The company where I work could work quite happily in any location.

spacetweek wrote: »

So, to summarise: People need to, and should, live in cities as it civilises society and enriches it;

Now that's cobblers. Cities do the exact opposite, they anonymize, they isolate, they create communities or groups within groups, getto's for the poor and gated compounds for the rich. That's not civilising or enriching. Its the exact opposite.

Look at a small rural community, rich and poor live side by side, attend the same schools, join the same clubs, play the same sports, park side by side at the shops in their new 5 series or 12 year old banger.

Their kids don't get isolated or institutionalized to living generation after generation on the dole. They dont spend their lives surrounded by kids from the same background. They have a far greater sense of community.

They also get a better sense of self worth of attainment. They also become more self reliant both an individuals and as a community. When we needed a GAA field we built it. When we needed a water scheme we built it and managed it. When a try fell blocking a road we pulled out the chain saws.

spacetweek wrote: »

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.

Again cobblers. I spent 15 years living in a city but when I got married I moved to a rural environment. I'm 5 minutes from the local village, have great neighbours, etc. I have no state funded water (We have a well and also contribute to the local group water scheme) or sewerage (a septic tank not far from my well so you can be damn sure we make certain hats its working correctly), no public transport, the last time the local roads saw the council was lord knows when. Gritted !!!! Are you mad . We bought rock salt and gritted what needed to be gritted ourselves. I have never seen a cop. I didn't build the house so didn't pay the electricity connection fee but we live close to a main network transmission line.

Yet I pay the exact same taxes I did in the city. I commute to work which is longer but takes far less time and uses far less fuel than when I was living in the city (no traffic).

I support the local community and I can pursue my hobby in peace. I love old cars and working on them. Try doing that in a city. I had an old mustang that I took the diff off to get rebuilt. The car was on rear axle stands for two days before I had complaints and a week before the council were out.

The idea that I might want to do the work myself did not seem to register.

L1011 · 23-11-2010 6:17pm

knipex wrote: »

Ahhhhh

That explains why all electriciy stations are built in urban areas............

Firstly, some of them are - Huntstown, the North Wall gas turbines, etc.

Secondly, when did you last see a 220V AC line coming out of a power station? Or when did you see a power station right beside where people think they're entitled to park their McMansions?

dubhthach · 23-11-2010 6:40pm

MYOB wrote: »

Firstly, some of them are - Huntstown, the North Wall gas turbines, etc.

There are the following power stations in the Dublin urban area:
1. Poolbeg
2. Dublin Bay Power
3. North Wall Generating station
4. Huntstown
5. Lexlip Hydro-electric

As for Knipex point. Connections of rural one of houses to the national grid is subsidised and doesn't reflect the actual cost. It's considerably cheaper to connect houses in urban areas as you have "Economy of scale" as a result you connect 100houses to the grid for a fraction of what it takes to connect 100 one-off houses in rural areas. Of course if the connection fee wasn't subsidised you would probably have less one-off development.

I've nothing against people living in the country my issue is with unregulated sprawl/faux surbanisation of rural areas. Traditionally Irish people lived in nucleated settlements called Clocháns. Such a cluster could consist as few as 10 houses. Tbh Clocháns would be considerably better then ribbon development strung out along national roads.

invinciblePRSTV · 23-11-2010 7:00pm

You can argue all you like Knipex, but you're still disputing all accepted conventions of planning and development. We've seen the same counter-argument here time after time, yeah it's tough to accept, but you are living a lifestyle that is completely unsustainable and is a massive drain on resources.

It's no surprise you mention you're from West Clare. If ever there was a case study in how to butcher a rural area with endless one offs that is it. When Clare Co. Co have their block grant from the state repeatedly cut over the next few years to you'll see for yourself exactly what we're talking about.

The roads and public services in rural areas will decline massively. You'll complain bitterly i'm sure but it was extremely difficult to satisfy demands for rural services during the bubble years, it'll be neigh on impossible now.

knipex · 24-11-2010 10:24am

invinciblePRSTV wrote: »

You can argue all you like Knipex, but you're still disputing all accepted conventions of planning and development. We've seen the same counter-argument here time after time, yeah it's tough to accept, but you are living a lifestyle that is completely unsustainable and is a massive drain on resources.

It's no surprise you mention you're from West Clare. If ever there was a case study in how to butcher a rural area with endless one offs that is it. When Clare Co. Co have their block grant from the state repeatedly cut over the next few years to you'll see for yourself exactly what we're talking about.

The roads and public services in rural areas will decline massively. You'll complain bitterly i'm sure but it was extremely difficult to satisfy demands for rural services during the bubble years, it'll be neigh on impossible now.

I don't know if you actually read my post but I don't get any services currently. No water, no sewerage, no public transport, no street lighting, no footpaths, never even seen a council worker.

I don't have any issues with that. never had.

Your point about urban living being a civilising factor is complete nonsense, its flies in the face of reality as witnessed in every town and city in the country and indeed internationally. Urban living has lead to isolation and ghettoisation. It creates isolated communities living within urban areas that never interact, it leads to devastation and generations of families never seeing or witnessing the alternatives.

I grew up in west Clare. left many years ago but I agree with you that one ff housing has destroyed previously beautiful areas of West Clare. But I would ask you to drive around West Clare now and see how many of those houses are actually lived in. See how many are actually full time owner occupiers. See how many of them are an actual part of the community.

Those houses should never have been built, should never have been allowed and wrong.

BUT

Don't make the mistake of equating those houses with family homes that form an integral part of a local community. There is a huge difference.

danbohan · 24-11-2010 10:34am

MT wrote: »

I was going to make a foray into the infrastructure forum to start a thread on this topic. I'm glad I was beaten to it as others clearly share my views.

One-off housing in the countryside really irks me. I'll admit that I come at this from a mainly aesthetic concern but I just can't help finding it all so hideous. I also have an interest in this as I live in an area that appears to be at the cross roads between the blight that affects many parts of the Republic and some semblance of a residual planning policy.

Here in the beautiful county of Fermanagh I find myself aghast when peering over the border into probably one of the least planned regions in Western Europe: the Republic's North West. Boy are places like Donegal a sight to behold. It's just shocking. Rural roads are now literally lined with giant pebble dashed monstrosities after stretched yellow bungalows after weird hybrid architectural fantasies that seem to combine the Georgian period, something of a Spanish Hacienda and with a conservatory attached for good measure. It's got really dense now with houses literally cheek by jowel.

Indeed, the density along rural roads in the 'countryside' – stretching unchecked all the way from one village to the next – in places like Donegal, Leitrim, Cavan, Sligo, etc. is such that one-off housing is becoming something of a misnomer. These aren't isolated standalone houses in some Arcadian paradise, at least not up here in the Republic's northwest; this is now an all out suburbanisation of the countryside. There is just mansion after villa endlessly, and probably about a third of these are holiday homes. Excluding, conserved mountain ranges – and believe me some of the builders/farmers in this neck of the woods would stick a house anywhere if they could get away with it – views that don't contain at least five or more houses have long since become extinct.

Needless to say house design shows no connection with or sympathy for the immediate area or its history; it's all big, bigger still and uber-brash. Not to mention how every property's giant boundary walls are out of all proportion and scale to the little roads they line – who are they trying to keep out… planners? But this is a needless focus on the particular; it’s their collective impact that has devastated the region.

The towns and villages in these parts are a site to behold too. Think 1950s Ireland only even more decrepit and with even more peeling paint. Put simply, with the total lack of planning restrictions, the middle classes have said thanks very much and upped and left. They've taken with them not just their presence but also their money and any chance of a middle class interest in urban renewal. In short, this is a region with sprawled over countryside and sh!thole towns. A nightmare for anyone with an interest in planning and the aesthetics of the built/unbuilt environment.

The only people that seem to have gained in these parts are those that are ironically lauded in the region as the salt of the earth; two bit, greasy till developers and daaysint Bull McCabe type farmers are in a sweat to outdo each other over which can grow and harvest the most houses. Developers get to do housing parks on the cheap – they just use the existing roads – while charging a premium for a supposed rural house; with the decline of agriculture sites are the new cash crop of the small farmer.

Why am I concerned about all this? Well it seems to be a tidal wave that's unlikely to stop at the border. Despite Fermanagh being a gem of a rural county with still much unspoilt countryside, the locals are green – hah, there's a laugh as you'll not find much of that colour over the border in years to come – with envy at the free for all next door. Most have already built themselves 'one-off' houses in Donegal and now want to live permanently in one somewhere amongst the hills and dales of Fermanagh – which ironically means the end of the hills and dales.

Indeed, some of the more nationalists peeps here have remonstrated that our 'alien' and restrictive rural planning laws are yet another Brit imposition and a denial of our Irishness. Was bungalow blitz really in the proclamation? Anyway, accordingly the authorities here have acquiesced and there's now a slow but steady war of attrition between the cement mixer and the green hills of this soon to be destroyed lakeland paradise. I see plans for a national park across the county have been quietly dropped.

I suppose there might be a sociological observation lurking somewhere in all this. Is it possible that Irish people have some perverse, deep seated hatred for both towns and the countryside? Or is that too harsh a judgement on their willingness to leave the former to crumble into the ground while pouring concrete over the latter?

Sorry, couldn't help a rant. This whole thing is maddening.

I guess we'll be taking our kids on holidays to England, Scotland and Wales… hell, maybe even Holland:eek: and Germany, in decades to come so that they can have at least a fleeting glimpse of what countryside looks like.

fermanagh is housing is wonderful , places like ballinamallard ,kesh , fivemiletown are wonderful examples of what planning based on scottish housing looks like . rural northern ireland is like a 1950s timewarp . i think your jealous of the superb architectially desighed one off houses in rural areas of the south as are the ''green'' idiots in dublin

L1011 · 25-11-2010 12:08am

danbohan wrote: »

fermanagh is housing is wonderful , places like ballinamallard ,kesh , fivemiletown are wonderful examples of what planning based on scottish housing looks like . rural northern ireland is like a 1950s timewarp . i think your jealous of the superb architectially desighed one off houses in rural areas of the south as are the ''green'' idiots in dublin

You're the second person who can't come up with a more convincing argument than "you're just jealous"

I'm not jealous of being socially isolated, unable to get broadband, unsure of the safety of my water supply from my own sewage, etc, etc.

And the vast, vast majority of McMansions built here in the past 20 years are about as poorly architecturally designed as is possible. All Southfork or clone-boxes.

invinciblePRSTV · 25-11-2010 1:14am

knipex wrote: »

I don't know if you actually read my post but I don't get any services currently. No water, no sewerage, no public transport, no street lighting, no footpaths, never even seen a council worker.

No, i know this. It is a characteristic of many one off houses.

knipex wrote: »

Your point about urban living being a civilising factor is complete nonsense, its flies in the face of reality as witnessed in every town and city in the country and indeed internationally. Urban living has lead to isolation and ghettoisation. It creates isolated communities living within urban areas that never interact, it leads to devastation and generations of families never seeing or witnessing the alternatives.

I did not make any point about urban living being is or isn't a civilising factor. I made the point that one off housing development is unsustainable and costly. You can dress up country living as rosy all you like, but, like urban areas, rural Ireland has many social deprivation problems of its own.

antoobrien · 25-11-2010 9:57am

MYOB wrote: »

unsure of the safety of my water supply from my own sewage

So you live in Galway city then? The water situation in Galway is an advertisement for one off housing if i've ever seen one. It's pretty regular that something happens (on average 2+ weeks approx every two years to my recollection).

This does not happen with properly set up sewage tanks and wells. It does happen with group water schemes that, like all services in this country are poorly set up and maintained.

Given the choice, i'll take my one off house and pay for satellite tv and mobile or fiber broadband. The reason we have poor rural broadband is because of using the cheepest possible option (dsl, which is range limited) instead of investigating what is actually suitable for our nations needs.

wiseguy · 25-11-2010 11:22am

I tried to read the thread but the is quite alot of bull**** IMHO, so here is my perspective as someone who lives in a one off house, maybe we could have a reasoned discussion not insults thrown around. Maybe my situation is an exception but I find some posts stereotypical and offensive, no need paint everyone with same brush.

I live and work in 4 bed with an acre of land here in East Galway. I highlighted the important bit in bold, the whole upper floor (~50sq m) is used as an office for my IT services company (ironically, working on dozens of servers abroad using gigabits of bandwidth, where things are cheaper of course). Despite the recession I am making profits for several years now and have no debt/mortgage etc.
The house does have wireless broadband (2mbit symmetric) the pings are low enough for me to work remotely quite fine, i dont download crap, Internet connection is important to me and business.
The commute for me and my partner usually involves walking up the stairs

(beat that greenies). I just employed another new employee, he can do most of his work from his house, but if needed for a rare meeting he travels 20 minutes from Galway, usually while traffic is stuck in other direction (thank you Greens! for your ****ting on bypass)
There is a school less than KM away, and the child loves it. Plenty of sports in area, and good community spirit, unlike my time in city (lived in Galway, Dublin and other much larger cities outside Ireland) we actually speak/visit regularly to our neighbors

We grow quite a bit of fruit and veg on the land, and I planted a lot of fruit trees.

Regarding sewage I spent quite a bit on a sewage treatment system. And rainwater harvesting, I invested alot of money into insulation, triple glazing, heat recovery, airtightness, solar etc and the house is A rated and always has fresh air (when there aint too many cows in nearby field

)

We shop every so often in Galway and get fresh veg/meat in local villages

Overall me and my family have a much better life and work environment, are happier and more active. Unlike all the armchair environmentalists here I have put my wallet where my mouth is and living quite sustainable, now planning to put up a wind generator (windy hilltop site) to sell back to grid.

Maybe I am an exception but the people in area are happy, involved and not depressed, oh and theres no crime

Is my house a blight on landscape? no its tucked into a hill out of sight as per strict planning rules.

tl:dr dont paint everyone in once of housing with same brush, some of us care more about environment than city folk and actually do something about it.

dubhthach · 25-11-2010 12:09pm

antoobrien wrote: »

So you live in Galway city then? The water situation in Galway is an advertisement for one off housing if i've ever seen one. It's pretty regular that something happens (on average 2+ weeks approx every two years to my recollection).

Part of the issue with Loch Corrib is due to the large number of one off housing in it's catchment area (3138.43 km² - Lough Mask/Carra drain into Corrib via underground rivers). Due to the geology there is a vast amount of underground caves/rivers (most of the flow of Clare river goes underground at Claregalway for example).Old septic tanks that aren't properly lined end up contaminating the ground water which then ends up in the lake.

Cases of Crypto have been endemic in parts of North Galway for the last 20years. My mother who is a retired midwife will tell me that they would often see cases of Crypto in new mothers from North Galway (Area around Headford especially). This was long before the outbreak in Galway city. Basically the amount of Crypto hit such a high level there couple years ago in the Lake that it caused the outbreak in Galway. Of course it doesn't help that water treatment system in Galway city needs to be overhauled.

murphaph · 25-11-2010 12:22pm

Triangle wrote: »

And yes, i live in a one off house in the countryside as my previous (Urban)house was overlooked by 6 other houses and we could wave at the neighbours behind us while being in our kitchen.

I can wave at 20 neighbours from my kitchen window. I couldn't give a fcuk if they see me in my undies boiling an egg.

L1011 · 25-11-2010 1:01pm

antoobrien wrote: »

So you live in Galway city then? The water situation in Galway is an advertisement for one off housing if i've ever seen one. It's pretty regular that something happens (on average 2+ weeks approx every two years to my recollection).

This does not happen with properly set up sewage tanks and wells. It does happen with group water schemes that, like all services in this country are poorly set up and maintained.

Given the choice, i'll take my one off house and pay for satellite tv and mobile or fiber broadband. The reason we have poor rural broadband is because of using the cheepest possible option (dsl, which is range limited) instead of investigating what is actually suitable for our nations needs.

No, I live nowhere near Galway City; and as pointed out already - in that case your water supply is being contaminated with OTHER one-off houses septic tank over runs, not even your own.

Very few one-off houses have properly set up sewage tanks. You can see 2/3 year old houses in the countryside nearby here with marshes for gardens even in dry periods, or getting their tanks dug out for major work repeatedly.

danbohan · 25-11-2010 1:11pm

MYOB wrote: »

You're the second person who can't come up with a more convincing argument than "you're just jealous"

I'm not jealous of being socially isolated, unable to get broadband, unsure of the safety of my water supply from my own sewage, etc, etc.

And the vast, vast majority of McMansions built here in the past 20 years are about as poorly architecturally designed as is possible. All Southfork or clone-boxes.

1.social isolation is much more of a problem in city areas than in rural areas , 2.most people can get some form of broadband even in the most rural of areas ,3 i would be a lot more unsure of your water in dublin than mine but then maybe you like your chemicals , of course your 3 bed semi is lovely , you can always build out the back cant you ? now just because you lack the ability either financially or otherwise to live in a one off house /mansion does not mean you are entitled to knock it for everybody who wants too

L1011 · 25-11-2010 1:27pm

danbohan wrote: »

1.social isolation is much more of a problem in city areas than in rural areas

Try telling that to the charities that despair of how hard it is to deal with elderly people stuck in rural areas. Try telling that to teenagers who can't see their friends after 4pm without getting one of the parents to taxi them everywhere, etc.

danbohan wrote: »

, 2.most people can get some form of broadband even in the most rural of areas

I don't count low speed, high latency products as "broadband". You can't get DSL, FTTH or cable or, generally, even WiMAX which almost falls under the low speed/high latency heading.

danbohan wrote: »

,3 i would be a lot more unsure of your water in dublin than mine but then maybe you like your chemicals

Enjoy your cryptosporidium.

danbohan wrote: »

, of course your 3 bed semi is lovely , you can always build out the back cant you ?

5 bed. And out the side, should I want to. Site is large enough to put a 10 bed B&B on should I ever feel the need to.

danbohan wrote: »

now just because you lack the ability either financially or otherwise to live in a one off house /mansion does not mean you are entitled to knock it for everybody who wants too

Once again, coming back to this useless crutch

I could live in a McMansion if I wanted to - I'm FROM the countryside, there is more than sufficient land in the family, I'm financially sound and probably most importantly, my job is location unspecific.

I don't want to, for a number of reasons, one being that I'm not a selfish bollox willing to damage the countryside, cause environmental damage, put a higher burden on the state, make any future kids social outcasts, etc, etc. NOBODY on here who is against one off housing is against it because of jealousy, as much as you want to believe thats the only reason.

The epidemic of one off housing is the most selfish act of modern Ireland.

danbohan · 25-11-2010 1:38pm

MYOB wrote: »

Try telling that to the charities that despair of how hard it is to deal with elderly people stuck in rural areas. Try telling that to teenagers who can't see their friends after 4pm without getting one of the parents to taxi them everywhere, etc.

I don't count low speed, high latency products as "broadband". You can't get DSL, FTTH or cable or, generally, even WiMAX which almost falls under the low speed/high latency heading.

Enjoy your cryptosporidium.

you know what i dont believe a single word you have written ,. i am not coming out trying to deny you the right to live where you live , its your choice if you chose to live in an urban location . you dont have the right to try and deny people the right live in one off houses if they want too , its not your problem just concentrate on your urban issues leave rural issues to people who live in the rural areas ,your attitude is typical urban green .

Once again, coming back to this useless crutch

I could live in a McMansion if I wanted to - I'm FROM the countryside, there is more than sufficient land in the family, I'm financially sound and probably most importantly, my job is location unspecific.

I don't want to, for a number of reasons, one being that I'm not a selfish bollox willing to damage the countryside, cause environmental damage, put a higher burden on the state, make any future kids social outcasts, etc, etc. NOBODY on here who is against one off housing is against it because of jealousy, as much as you want to believe thats the only reason.

The epidemic of one off housing is the most selfish act of modern Ireland.

you know what i dont believe a single word you have written ,. i am not coming out trying to deny you the right to live where you live , its your choice if you chose to live in an urban location . you dont have the right to try and deny people the right live in one off houses if they want too , its not your problem just concentrate on your urban issues leave rural issues to people who live in the rural areas ,your attitude is typical urban green .

L1011 · 25-11-2010 1:40pm

danbohan wrote: »

you know what i dont believe a single word you have written ,. i am not coming out trying to deny you the right to live where you live , its your choice if you chose to live in an urban location . you dont have the right to try and deny people the right live in one off houses if they want too , its not your problem just concentrate on your urban issues leave rural issues to people who live in the rural areas ,your attitude is typical urban green .

hahahah. "typical urban green"

I'm from *rural* Donegal. I'm a paid up member of LABOUR. I wouldn't piss on a Green if they were on fire.

I have every right to try and protect the country from being destroyed, and selfish one off builds are one thing which is destroying it.

Even when we were mostly a rural based population, people didn't live in isolated one off houses.

danbohan · 25-11-2010 2:51pm

MYOB wrote: »

hahahah. "typical urban green"

I'm from *rural* Donegal. I'm a paid up member of LABOUR. I wouldn't piss on a Green if they were on fire.

I have every right to try and protect the country from being destroyed, and selfish one off builds are one thing which is destroying it.

Even when we were mostly a rural based population, people didn't live in isolated one off houses.

no you dont , you have chosen not to live in the countryside therefore you should not have any input into what goes on in it . just as rural dwellers should not be telling urban dwellers where to park etc ,now if you choose to come back and live in lovely donegal and find a nice site for your mcmansion then you can have your input until then live up to your name and MYOB

dubhthach · 25-11-2010 3:01pm

danbohan wrote: »

no you dont , you have chosen not to live in the countryside therefore you should not have any input into what goes on in it

By that logic taxmoney raised in Urban areas (the vast majority of all tax-income) should only be spent in Urban areas.

L1011 · 25-11-2010 4:44pm

danbohan wrote: »

no you dont , you have chosen not to live in the countryside therefore you should not have any input into what goes on in it . just as rural dwellers should not be telling urban dwellers where to park etc ,now if you choose to come back and live in lovely donegal and find a nice site for your mcmansion then you can have your input until then live up to your name and MYOB

If you return all the financial "input" your rural area has had from my tax money to my urban area, and get all your neighbours to do the same; I'll stop looking for input.

In the interim, you're a selfish drain on the state, destroying the countryside and the fact that you're reduced to accusing "jealousy" shows you KNOW this.

Amtmann · 25-11-2010 5:12pm

To be pedantic: "jealousy" refers specifically to envy within romantic contexts. "Envy" refers to everything else. So I don't think MYOB is truly jealous of you, danbohan

That said, I don't think selfishness comes into it. I think it's more a case of chronic ignorance. Most one-off housing owners lack the kind of education or information necessary to enable them to appreciate the wider ramifications of one-off housing.

antoobrien · 25-11-2010 5:23pm

dubhthach wrote: »

Part of the issue with Loch Corrib is due to the large number of one off housing in it's catchment area

Not to mention Moycullen, Oughterard and Moycullen's sewage draining into it.

My point about the water system in Galway is that it's reasonably regularly infected with something (not just crypto). And lets throw the lead pipes in Mervue (where I grew up incidentally) into the mix. What was published at the time was the 'fix' for the crypto caused the lead to be stripped from the pipes.

Utter rubbish, the system (much like Dublin's) isn't capable of handling it and these problems are the result.

I'm currently working in Dublin and I refuse to use tap water unless it's been filtered becuase it tastes funny, but i'm from Galway so I probably don't know what water is supposed to taste like.

If I ever have children I'll be looking to ensure they get the best quality of life and that is in my experience is not in a town.

antoobrien · 25-11-2010 5:39pm

Furet wrote: »

Most one-off housing owners lack the kind of education or information necessary to enable them to appreciate the wider ramifications of one-off housing.

At the risk of being crass take a look at the state of the poorest areas of the 4 major cities in Ireland and tell me if the standard of education is any better than those that live in one-off housing. Or if they're there because they are enlightened about the ramifications of one off housing.

There's an anti one off housing bias in this country that has absolutely nothing to do with planning, for one simple reason: we are unable can't plan anything (see Knocknacara in Galway) and are inconsistent in our planning approach. One example of this is refusal of planning permission on land for reason of inadequate drainage, when the site next door was just given PP. It seems to depend on who you get and how much work they have to (far easier to reject without having to go to s site, god forbid a council engineer leaves their office).

We are also rotten to the core. It shows up in very different ways, not all of them dishonest (or with dishonest intentions) from nepotism and cronyism to bad attitudes and total inability to be consistent. The worst thing about it is hearing one council official tell a friend who fits all the council defined criteria: 'You will never get planning permission for a house while i work here'.

Amtmann · 25-11-2010 6:07pm

antoobrien wrote: »

At the risk of being crass take a look at the state of the poorest areas of the 4 major cities in Ireland and tell me if the standard of education is any better than those that live in one-off housing. Or if they're there because they are enlightened about the ramifications of one off housing

Don't misunderstand me: I'm not saying they're uneducated in general. I am saying they don't have the necessary knowledge of planning, economic geography, infrastructural provision, and environmental awareness. The vast majority of Irish people don't either, whether they live in towns, cities, villages or one-offs.
Without an understanding of these issues, people are ignorant of them, and, because of that ignorance, I wouldn't call someone 'selfish' because he wants to live in a one-off house. I'd just call him under-educated when it comes to housing and planning.

Pete_Cavan · 25-11-2010 8:39pm

danbohan wrote: »

now just because you lack the ability either financially or otherwise to live in a one off house /mansion does not mean you are entitled to knock it for everybody who wants too

You would lack the ability financially to live in a one off house if you had to cover the full costs of doing so and did not have the cost subsidies by taxes generated in urban areas.

danbohan wrote: »

no you dont , you have chosen not to live in the countryside therefore you should not have any input into what goes on in it .

If he is paying for you to live there then yes, he should have an input into what goes on in rural areas.

Empire o de Sun · 25-11-2010 9:03pm

"Sure it's just one house, it won't make a difference"

well some roads are essentially just long suburbs with no footpaths. There are no fields left fronting the roads.

One-off houses: Good or Bad?

Comments