Co. Council Design Guides

Slig

No6 wrote: »

As for the design changes Mayo Co Co have now brought in a design guide for rural houses and as far as I can see if the features on your house are not shown in the guide then you cannot have them, its complete and total rubbish and is difficult to get around.

Any link to these "design Guidelines," I'm intregued?

EDIT:

its Ok I found it. Its here:
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Planning/DevelopmentPlansandLocalAreaPlans/MayoCountyDevelopmentPlan2008-2014/PDFFile,7801,en.pdf
if anyone is interrested

muffler

Slig wrote: »

Any link to these "design Guidelines," I'm intregued?

EDIT:

its Ok I found it. Its here:
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Planning/DevelopmentPlansandLocalAreaPlans/MayoCountyDevelopmentPlan2008-2014/PDFFile,7801,en.pdf
if anyone is interrested

No. Bother enough here with our guide.

No6

Slig wrote: »

Any link to these "design Guidelines," I'm intregued?

EDIT:

its Ok I found it. Its here:
http://www.mayococo.ie/en/Planning/DevelopmentPlansandLocalAreaPlans/MayoCountyDevelopmentPlan2008-2014/PDFFile,7801,en.pdf
if anyone is interrested

When you've finished laughing post your comments!!!:D I'm just waiting for them to condition that you have to wear a leprecaun suit at all times when you're in your house!!!:D Seriously though I have been know to point out the the vernarcular style which is being imposed in this doccument originated long before 1963, the golden age before planners!!!:D

muffler

The bay window requirements made me chuckle

muffler

New thread opened for this

Slig

Seems to be a bit of a copy & paste of the Cork design guidelines. Also seems like a bit of an excuse for the "design concious" planner to stick their oar in.

The problem with picking features is that the classical vernacular features only fit a narrow building. Nobody today wants small rooms so you will end up with a bungalow style anyway.

From a practical point of view how the hell can you fit the reguired amount of insulation into a roof and still have those slimline barges and eaves. The house I am designing for myself has lean too dormers only because its the only way the roof doesnt look too chunky and it still ends up a contemporary style.

If they stick to these guidelines, fine but get somebody architecturally qualified to supervise the designs and not just a "validation" style "tick the box if the features are listed" approach by people with no design experience, qualification or style.

The siting section is rubbish. I guarantee if you try putting in planting along the front boundary you'll reduce the sightlines and a lane wont be allowed because all the existing houses have a 10m front garden and you must keep the building line. The splayed entrance is grand but then where is your off carriage parking?

Its a novel approach but I dont think it will work.

muffler

The guidelines are similar to what we have had here since August 06 but thankfully most of the planners have a relaxed attitude. Unfortunately the details are spread over a lot of docs but the list can be viewed here

sydthebeat

in order for rural dwelling development to become successful the whole planning system needs to be reformed. Development guidelines should not need to be accepted or rejected by a bunch of political laypeople.

They need to outlaw terms such as 'building line', 'set back', 'ridge height', 'minimum site area' etc....

each individual application should have its own requirements depending on the nature and scale of it ie site size, waste water treatment, energy conservation,... but at the same time being subservient, or magnanimous, to the nature of development in its environs, depending on the aesthetic function of this existing developemnt.

Slig

On the other side of things, it does give the planners an oppertunity to refuse/request change of design for something that does look hideous.

The only problem is that, as syd said, the system is so politically motivated this will only happen very rarely and not to the buildings that it should.

Slig

muffler wrote: »

New thread can of worms opened for this

I think this is more appropriate going on the track record here:D

sydthebeat

Slig wrote: »

On the other side of things, it does give the planners an oppertunity to refuse/request change of design for something that does look hideous.

The only problem is that, as syd said, the system is so politically motivated this will only happen very rarely and not to the buildings that it should.

I would argue that they always had that power slig...

Would you actually believe that here in Laois the planning section drafted a 'design guide' but the fatcats in the council chamber rejected it, with no reason given..... :eek:.... this is what we're up against.

We now have planners in there who refuse designs based on their on opinion rather than on any guided basis, and we all know that planners are fabulous architects in disguise!! :rolleyes:

Its frustrating because the answer is so simple but politically unattractive.

I order to build a rural dwelling 'off grid', as such, should hold huge responsibility on the part of the applicant. These responsibilites should include every effort to be sympathetic to the natural environment, to be a productive and active member of the rural community, to be as self sustainable as is possible, to use local services and materials where ever possible etc.....

Slig

sydthebeat wrote: »

I would argue that they always had that power slig...

Would you actually believe that here in Laois the planning section drafted a 'design guide' but the fatcats in the council chamber rejected it, with no reason given..... :eek:.... this is what we're up against.

We now have planners in there who refuse designs based on their on opinion rather than on any guided basis, and we all know that planners are fabulous architects in disguise!! :rolleyes:

Its frustrating because the answer is so simple but politically unattractive.

I order to build a rural dwelling 'off grid', as such, should hold huge responsibility on the part of the applicant. These responsibilites should include every effort to be sympathetic to the natural environment, to be a productive and active member of the rural community, to be as self sustainable as is possible, to use local services and materials where ever possible etc.....

Unfortunately I think you may be right. Here in Leitrim we have a (brief) design guidelines with pictures of verically emphasised windows, trad door types, trad building forms but it is usually taken out of context. e.g

Split level house built on the side of the hill with living area on first floor and large sliding glass doors opening onto south facing terrace.

It got criticised by a planner because the large glass doors werent vertically emphasised enough, the large balcony(terrace?) wasent allowed and the neighbouring dwellings were all single storey (5-600m away and on top of the hill!!)
The house ended up as a single storey and half the hill had to be cut and removed in order to keep the finished floor level to the planners approval.

I personally dont agree with one off housing at all. Its completely unsustainable but if the LAs continue granting large generic housing developments with lots of houses, very little private green space and no facilities then most people see rural housing as the only option for space.

sydthebeat

yes i agree, its a 2 way issue... the quality and standards on housing development in urban areas is kack (that i believe is the technical term )

we've had 10 years of rubbish generic cost based housing developments...

whats the betting we repeat all these mistakes again when the recession ends..!!

Slig

sydthebeat wrote: »

yes i agree, its a 2 way issue... the quality and standards on housing development in urban areas is kack (that i believe is the technical term )

we've had 10 years of rubbish generic cost based housing developments...

whats the betting we repeat all these mistakes again when the recession ends..!!

I only make bets when there could be a chance of winning.

When you think of the barriers a one off house creates it amazes me that people still want to build.
broadband, bad roads (and you have to drive everywhere) poor facilities (sewerage, water, tv, phone), poor electricity standard and isolation.

I really cant blame people for their opinion of town living though. It just isnt practical to have one house on a big site in a town or village when you could build 2 houses on the same site and pocket the change. That combined with the same poor facilities like water, broadband, telephone etc. combined with local schools, shops and petrol stations closed and converted to housing developments

muffler

Slig wrote: »

I personally dont agree with one off housing at all. Its completely unsustainable

So you would see things from a planners point if view - round them up and put them all in the towns.

Where are you going to get your potato or vegetable patch then or where can the kids play safely?

No6

So as not to be seen as picking on Mayo Co Co (who me!!:D) perhaps muffler could rename this thread to Co Council Design Guides!!! And while we're at it lets have a debate on sustainable housing and what exactly it is!!! Another thread perhaps!!

muffler

Fair point re Mayo.

Where is it anyhow?

muffler

Right - thread title changed.

Slig

muffler wrote: »

So you would see things from a planners point if view - round them up and put them all in the towns.

Where are you going to get your potato or vegetable patch then or where can the kids play safely?

I grew up in the country on a farm in the middle of nowhere (wife has another name for it but shes from Dublin:D) Obviously for a farmer it is essential to live on the farm but do school teachers and public servants that drive into town every morning and home every evening need to?

I had 88 acres to play on when I was a kid but I still wasent allowed on the road to cycle my bike and that was nearly 20 years ago. How much more traffic has rural housing generated now? There are 3 cars on the front street of my parents house and they are the only ones living there still, when my 2 brothers and I lived at home there was 6.

How much potential farm land has been sold to make way for houses, how much of our scenery has been ruined by bungalows that are now vacant as the occupancy clause is up? How much pollution has been caused by old septic tanks and percolation areas never upgraded as houses were extended?

Everytime the road from my village to the local town is resurfaced it is dug up again to link a house into a water pipe or phone line.

Saying all that the towns dont really have a lot to offer either in the way of space. There are, however, several small villages where housing estates were built correctly (open space was the only selling point they had) and sustainably planned, if only by accident. Look at Keadue or Croghan or Ballinameen in Co.Roscommon for example.

Slig

muffler wrote: »

Fair point re Mayo.

Where is it anyhow?

Its to the northwest of Here,
I think its somewhere around Here give or take a few trees:D

No6

And this from Lads from Donegal and Roscommon for gods sake!!!:D but really my question is what makes a house or a development sustainable??

Surely the urban sprwal the has been generated by the celtic tiger (and before that) cannot be considered sustainable. Perhaps all development is unstainable!!:D

Sustainable Development is usually defined as "development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs".

To my mind nearly everything we do now (not just building) is happily compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.

How can shoe box apartments which are heated to a gold shield homes standard (with electricty) be considered sustainable or houses in carlow or longford from which people have commute to work in Dublin (if they still have jobs) be considered sustainable. Very few people work on the land anymore even small farmers are now only part timers!! but that dosnt mean the land should be abandoned to a few sheep (letrim!!) There's plenty of people living in "sustainable" towns that drive to work in other "sustainable" towns a lot further than your teacher or public servant. Thats what is unstainable not living in the countryside, and I think the biggest causes of polution is the local authorities followed by modern farming practices followed by the septic tank.

topcatcbr

Lads we havnt a clue in this country about urban or rural sustainable planning.


Sustainability is not all about energy requirements but it is as good a place to start as any.
The first problem we have is the amount of energy required to run homes
We are starting to tackle this.
The second is the energy required to get to and from our homes.

Our towns are rediculously planned. They are designed with no regard to public transport services. In holand and (to a lesser extent) UK the developments are designed to incorporate public transport. All homes are within a short distance of a frequent and reliable public transport hub.
In ireland we could walk over a mile (in a town) to the nearest bus or rail stop to catch a train or bus which is as regular as sunshine.

We need to seriously invest in our bus and rail network. It should be cheeper(& quicker) to travel by public transport than by car. This involves serious subsidies.