john gormley and no planning apps.

mirror mirror

what exactly is this about ,no planning allowed for a few years ..is it for large developments ,estates etc.

muffler

Have you a link for that?

mirror mirror

no links , caught the tailend of it on the news.............was wondering what exactly is it about

muffler

Haven't heard of anything and there are no announcements to that effect on the DoE web site.

RKQ

It might be to do with the discussion on Frontline last night - excess of 150,000 to 300,000 unoccupied or unfinished houses in the State. Some may need to be demolished.

Some people may use these statistics to limit "One-off houses" in the countryside. The President of the Planners did try to indicate his. I'm sure all housing will now be debated fully in the hope of finding a solution.

sydthebeat

Myth:

1. there are 300,000 unoccupied houses
2. these are even spread throughout the country
3. demolition is a solution in some areas

Reality;

1. There are 50-90K new built unoccupied homes.
2. These 'ghost estates' are to be found in small towns and villages in commuter belts
3. no homes will be demolished, id stake €20 on it!!

House sales have been in decline and then a state of paralysis since thicko McDowell announced changes to stamp duty all the way back in April '07. At the moment i believe that there is adequate demand out there to clear unoccupied home with a one year period. Whether or not Gormley puts an embargo on planning is a moot point because:
a. theres no developers out there silly enough to apply for planning for scheme developments in the current climate
b. theres no bankers daft or suicidal enough to loan money to developers to purchase lands for development in the current climate.

Politicians should learn the lesson to stay as far away from planning matters as possible......

sinnerboy

My 2cents - no one off house should be permitted within a 3 mile radius of new houses being demolished . That would be environmental vandalism . Got a local need - buy one of these houses

Wolfhound14

sinnerboy wrote: »

My 2cents - no one off house should be permitted within a 3 mile radius of new houses being demolished . That would be environmental vandalism . Got a local need - buy one of these houses

Can't agree with that.
Many of the houses for sale are not of a very high standard and are too small. I would share your environmental concerns, but nobody should be forced to buy a specific house.
In theory, the market will resolve this. i.e. If they need these houses sold, drop the price enough and they will sell.

ellejay

sinnerboy wrote: »

My 2cents - no one off house should be permitted within a 3 mile radius of new houses being demolished . That would be environmental vandalism . Got a local need - buy one of these houses

so if someone, who is generally a taxpayer, wants to build a house of decent size, decent garden, appropiate location, decently noise proofed(sp) you think they should be denied this, in order to further prop up the banks who gave loans to developers, who paid over the odds for inappropiate land in the middle of nowhere???

I sooo don't think so.

IMO The Environmental Vandalism was firstly the rezoning of the land, secondly the granted planning for the land and thirdly the building on the land.

sydthebeat

sinnerboy wrote: »

My 2cents - no one off house should be permitted within a 3 mile radius of new houses being demolished . That would be environmental vandalism . Got a local need - buy one of these houses

I wouldnt agree fully. Rural local need needs to be established to live in a rural area. These urban or suburban homes simply wouldnt meet this rural local need as set out in the rural housing guidelines.

I would direct speculative one off development to these houses, not non-speculative.

I think the idea of "two-for's" is a great idea to clear the stock. Say if you buy a semi you can get the adjoining dwelling for say 30% more.

(living in a 3 bed semi with 5 kids, i know exactly how valuable space is!!)

sydthebeat

ellejay wrote: »

so if someone, who is generally a taxpayer, wants to build a house of decent size, decent garden, appropiate location, decently noise proofed(sp) you think they should be denied this..........

without trying to get this off topic....

They already are!!!

Its called the rural housing guidelines which restrict rural dwellings to people who have a genuine need to live in a rural area. No 'local need' should equate to no planning permission.

If you want me to start up a new topic to discuss this, i will.

old boy

the area where i live in extreame south.co. limerick it seems no planning applications are being accepted

Slig

I think stricter guidelines need to be established, a blanket ban wont work. Sinnerboy I have to agree to you in principle.
I think to market will regulate this to a certain extent itself. Joe farmers son isnt going to spend 200K + cost of house + planning permission to build his own house if the house down the road will only cost 90k all in, at least it wouldnt make any sence to;).

Syd, I couldnt agree more, If politicians are to take anything from this situation it should be DONT GET INVOLVED! I'd have to wonder how many of these ghost estates are there because the local TD "advised" the planners on the original application.

sydthebeat

old boy wrote: »

the area where i live in extreame south.co. limerick it seems no planning applications are being accepted

accepted???

i think not, legally they cannot refuse to accept an application.

however, they are probably advising clients that the application may not be successful due to the existing unused housing stock in the area.

RVR

2. These 'ghost estates' are to be found in small towns and villages in commuter belts

FYI, there is an interesting map here: http://irelandafternama.wordpress.com/2010/01/25/identifying-ireland%E2%80%99s-ghost-estates/

ellejay

sydthebeat wrote: »

without trying to get this off topic....

They already are!!!

Its called the rural housing guidelines which restrict rural dwellings to people who have a genuine need to live in a rural area. No 'local need' should equate to no planning permission.

If you want me to start up a new topic to discuss this, i will.

Sorry didn't mean to drag off topic.
Eventually when I apply for planning I'll probly ask for advice on 'local need' but for the moment probly ok.

My understanding of the planning process is that it can be hard enough to get planning permission in the first place.
I'd have thought that usually if people are applying for planning it's to build a dwelling that's of better quality than existing available dwellings in the area or maybe because it work's out cheaper.

My extremely limited knowledge of the planning process would lead me to think that a further restriction of not even being able to apply for planning if I wanted to apply within a 3 mile radius of new houses being demolished is really unfair.

If houses are not selling even at a reduced rate it's probly because people don't want to live there, I don't see why they should be only choice in the area for local purchasers.

Slig

The most common reasons in my area are
a: One off houses are generally on larger plots, have larger internal spaces and are further away from other houses than housing estate houses, plus people like to have a house that is designed for them.
b: They already have a site (being farmers or farmers children) and this also usually gives them a "housing need" so it is considerably cheaper to build the house for themselves or to sell it for a profit.

I dont think its fair to assume that a one off house is any better built than one thats built in an estate. The builder in both cases is still out to build the cheapest house however a housing estate house is generally subject to stricter supervision by independant (sorta) professionals. People such as architects, engineers, quantity surveyors and the local authority will all be involved with a large estate while a one-off house is generally only project managed by a self builder or supervised at stages by a professional.

beyondpassive

This is a discussion on planning, however we have no planning system in this country. Planning decides in the public interest how to allocate scarce resources such as land and drinking water and strategically locate new population to optimize the efficiency of services delivery. Instead we had a entrepreneurial planning regime, build what you like where you like. A national policy which was anti-urban, even though more than 50% of our population is urbanized, the vast majority of of TD's come from a rural power base. Our capital city and engine of growth is controlled by a nepotistic clique from the midlands. Our National spatial policy to provide compeditive regions, was politically comprimised to provide 18 gateways and hubs and then these were ignored by the administrative relocation we called decentralisation. 40% of our houses went into unzoned land, therefore we made no service provision for these people and providing facilities for this dispearsed population is costing us all a fortune. One off houses are generally unplanned houses and their effect on ground water and aquifers due to septic tanks which rarely offer basic secondry treatment. Blame who you like, the fact is we can't drink the water, the EPA monitering show half of all water schemes are contaminated. We need a change in our system of governance to seperate the local from the national and allow local and regional authorities powers to raise revenues and make policy decisions.

Planning is moving towards a evidence based system. With the water frame works directive requiring good water status toall rivers by 2013, if a house has even the slightest risk of contaminating water it cannot be allowed. We people we tasked with making decisions for our future, made politically expedient decisions which convenienced sectoral interests. We all got a little bit of something, short term thank you very much, but a whole lot of nothing long term.

The choice in housing is dire, modular bland estate house at the edge of town or a hick one off. Money that should have accrued to the social good from rezoning decisions went as flip value profit to a select few politically well conected individuals. All the time we said nothin becasue we were getting the crumbs from the tables, and now we do nothing except blame the cental bank, and the public sector and say that FG would be better than FF. We need to radically alter our system of governance to get rid of our unnaccountable Big government and introduce the concept of subsidiarity, decision making at the lowest level, with national government tasked with oversight responsibilities. To those that say the system of regional and municipal governance dosent work, look at denmark. Or for succesful regional develotion look at our regional rugby teams, some of the strongest in Europe, if we turned our regions into urban growth centres we could again become compeditive. Look at the big picture please folks.

sinnerboy

ellejay wrote: »

If houses are not selling even at a reduced rate it's probly because people don't want to live there, I don't see why they should be only choice in the area for local purchasers.

Look forward 50 years and beyond . What if we ALL behave like this ? What choice then ? "We moved into the country to get away from this" - when 10 years on the farmer next door sells his field and a developer throws up an estate

I've seen that happen . And so the punter lodges an objection "to maintain the countryside" . Or at least the view of it from their windows .

Like fossil fuel , land is a finite resource ....

Jimbo

Can't see a blanket ban working at all.
The national oversupply of houses does not affect all areas.

For instance the recently published outline strategy for the next LAP for my area is projecting a population growth of >50% for the next 10 years. Thankfully a lack of infrastructure stunted the supply of houses during the boom.

Blanket bans will never work when the extent of the problem is so variable throughout the country.

No6

Didn't they try a blanket ban on one off rural houses in the north!!, what happend to that!!! I find the rural / urban housing planning debate immensly frustrating, I live in a rural house, I design one off rural houses yet the criteria governing where and why and who can have them is being governed by a number D4 heads and uk trained senior urban planners.

Everbody in rural areas knows the biggest polluters of ground water are the Co Councils wastwater treatment plants serving urban populations and discharging directly into our rivers and streams, followed closely by agricultural pollution, yet the septic tank is demonised. If a house has a chance of pollution the groundwater it is most likely an urban house served by a sewer going to and out of date and over capacity treatment system.

I have no hugh problems with forms of rural housing need being applied and would indeed would suggest that any of the D4 residents as mentioned above be banned from having holiday homes anywhere west of Lucan!!!:D... oh sorry I forgot they are all culties too and are only going home for the weekend!!!:D

beyondpassive

Most planners are professionals and compile reports based on the evidence provided within the framework of County development plans and national guidance such as the flawed Sustainable Rural Housing. Guidelines for Planning Authorities. Doehlg April 2005.

The planners report is then sent to the county manager for his executive decision. Most planners have no design education, much like the draftsmen that design most rural housing. It is very difficult for planners decisions to be consistent because the guidance is so purposely vague.

I think we can all agree that there is a need for vibrant rural communities. The problem is that most new housing built in the countryside is urban generated, who wouldn't prefer a nice acre site with your very own design or indeed some klassy plans from some structural draftman or building surveyor. In fifteen years time if the trend to build rural housing by those with the means continued at 2005 pace, every bit of road frontage would have a nice peach pained block walls and eagle festooned gateposts and electronic gates announcing yet another gerry built mock georgian eyesore. At the same time, the middle class flee the towns leaving nothing but greasy chippers, vomit stained pubs and a bookies in the once vibrant towns. You get your house out in the country, but you lose the town and communities. And whose pushing rural housing, its our FF/FG/labour local councillors and our TD's (who really are just suited to being councillors) placating a narrow public interest. In other European countries the rural lobby, is strongly anti rural housing development while being strongly pro rural enterprise developemnt. in Ireland we get histerical when we try to have this conversation. Its time to start looking beyond the parish pump and Jackie Healy Rae, things are about to get serious in the planning debate.

muffler

beyondpassive, dont be so dismissive of the professional competence of any person who prepared plans for a rural planning application. If you have a problem with the quality or quantity of the existing rural housing stock then take it up with the people who approved it.

Can we now keep this on topic please.

RKQ

No6 wrote: »

Everbody in rural areas knows the biggest polluters of ground water are the Co Councils wastwater treatment plants serving urban populations and discharging directly into our rivers and streams, followed closely by agricultural pollution, yet the septic tank is demonised.

+1
Very well said No6.
The debate on Frontline was about Ghost Estates in urban areas. Excessive numbers of housing estates. There was hardly a mention of rural housing.

There was lots on the programme that I didn't agree with. An Taisce tried to claim they warned about housing estates in urban areas - I thought they ran a negative campaign on "One off housing" in the past. At least thats all she spoke about on the Late Late.

Lack of supervision of housing estates, during construction was blamed on poor standards, unfinished paths and water freezing all over the country. 10% of estates were inspected by the LA.

Self-Builders might only have periodic stage payment inspections but at least the house is visually inspected. Also Self-builders tend to expect high standards and question every detail. So IMO quality of material, workmanship & finish tends to be higher on Self-builds.

There are lots of reasons for Ghost Estates. I hope "the market" will look after them with time. There is a lot we need to debate but its too early to administer blame,- at least lets have the debate first.
Blanket bans never work & usually indicate poor argument, poor management, a need jerk reaction, an over-rection. Banning is also undemocratic and possiblely illegal.

beyondpassive

I wouldn't question the professional skills of the contributors here, who have shown themselves to be extremely knowledgeable and competent group of experts, but we've all seen inappropriate designs of dubious quality or had to investigate the problems householders were left with because of unsupervised amateur builders . The issue here is nobody is accountable for the legacy of the last 10 years, the councilors blame the professional planners, the planners blame the councilors are national policy and national policy is set by TD's who are influenced by their constituents and sectoral interests. I'm to blame for being part of the mess that is our built environment. Working in the UK, I see the importance of plan led forward planning, development control and building control inspections. Its too convenient to blame everything on the planners, when national policy is at fault.