Gormley to relax rules on one-off housing along certain National Secondaries

Amtmann

THE controversial ban on one-off houses along the nation's secondary roads is to be scrapped, the Irish Independent has learned.

But new developments, such as fast-food restaurants and giant warehouse-type retail outlets, are to be completely banned from motorway and dual-carriageway interchanges on the main primary network.

Environment Minister John Gormley is proposing to give councils powers to allow one-off developments on main secondary roads under new planning guidelines.

The move is certain to be welcomed by Fianna Fail councillors and deputies who have vehemently opposed the ban -- which has been supported by the Mr Gormley's Green Party.

The ban on fast-food restaurants and warehouse-type outlets from motorway and dual- carriageway interchanges is designed to stop the creation of unnecessary local traffic mixing with cars and trucks moving along the primary national road network.

Currently, there is a cordon sanitaire -- or quarantine line -- on developments on main primary and secondary routes.

The changes give new flexibility for one-off houses and other developments on secondary routes that are not going to be upgraded in the near future by the National Roads Authority (NRA).

The new guidelines are due to be published shortly. They mean that shopping and other commercial developments will not be permitted at key interchanges, such as that at Blundlestown on the new M3, which runs through the Skryne valley in Co Meath.

The NRA routinely objects to one-off houses along main roads because of the dangers involved in cars moving on to and off the roads interacting with fast-moving trucks and cars.

However, the new guidelines giving the green light to housing and other developments will apply only to secondary roads that are not going to be upgraded.

Guidelines

It is expected that normal safety criteria for main secondary roads will apply and will not be affected by the changes.

The ban on one-off houses on the main inter-urban primary routes will remain, due to those same safety concerns.

The planning guidelines will be put out to public consultation, after which they will be finalised.

Local authorities and An Bord Pleanala will then have to take account of the guidelines when deciding on planning applications and any objections to them.

Another feature of the new guidelines is that developments already in place on motorway or dual-carriageway interchanges cannot be altered for other uses.

For instance, a retail shopping premises could not be turned into a fast-food outlet.

- Treacy Hogan Environment Correspondent

Irish Independent

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/gormley-to-drop-veto-on-oneoff-houses-on-main-roads-2229552.html

Sponge Bob

Green logic Rural secondary roads are crap so lets build more entrances onto them and make then even crappier. Then rural people will suffer even worse delays than they do now and will leave the countryside so that urban green types take over on their bicycles.

He should be extending the ban to R Roads not relaxing it from N roads. Moron

Zoney

Greens continue their transition to becoming Grianna Fail.

Chris_5339762

But new developments, such as fast-food restaurants and giant warehouse-type retail outlets, are to be completely banned from motorway and dual-carriageway interchanges on the main primary network.

There go the chances of unofficial MSAs. Well done.

Amtmann

Chris_5339762 wrote: »

There go the chances of unofficial MSAs. Well done.

On the face of it, it seems so. But the NRA is committed to working with the likes of Topaz and others to establish junction services, according to a recent policy document.

invinciblePRSTV

The beauty of coalition Governments, this is clearly Gormley throwing the dog a bone to FFs Rural backbenchers.

Irish and Proud

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Green logic Rural secondary roads are crap so lets build more entrances onto them and make then even crappier. Then rural people will suffer even worse delays than they do now and will leave the countryside so that urban green types take over on their bicycles.

He should be extending the ban to R Roads not relaxing it from N roads. Moron

One off houses should be banned full stop!!!

They are totally unsustainable in terms of transport, services, waste generation etc. If people want to live in the county, they should be living in clusters of smaller houses with more shared resources. That way, rural populations would be more easily served by public transport (rural transport initiative maybe) and utilities etc due to economies of scale.

Alas, I do happen to live in one (not my choice that is) and it just seems to be one maintenance headache after another - a couple of my relations also had such houses and it seemed to be the same old storey. I also resent the way in which I'm left with no public transport as a result of bad planning (these sort of houses should never have been allowed in the first place) - I'm now learning to drive as a result, so I would love to ask Mr Gormley to think about that - I'm sure I'm not the only person having to take to the road as a result of these one off houses.

Regards!

BluntGuy

I don't like to "bash" the Green Party, but these kind of decisions continue to make them look worse and worse.

Of course it's as much the FF councillors' fault for supporting and encouraging completely unsustainable (and dangerous) one-off developments for the sake of gathering up votes.

I agree with Sponge_Bob that we should be extending the ban to key regional routes. In particular, many of the regional roads which have been recently detrunked are of high-standard for the road class, so the last thing we need to is start ruining them.

If people want to live in the county, they should be living in clusters of smaller houses with more shared resources.

100% Agreed.

In addition to the benefits of making it easier to provide infrastructure, it is also better for helping to tackle social issues like rural isolation.

Sponge Bob

The country is simply rotten with empty houses, the ones on side roads and those already built on R and N roads shall suffice for our long term needs. Protecting former N now R roads should continue to be the priority it always was and linearly shrinking 50kph zones on R and N roads should be a priority too.

This gob****ery is just that, gob****ery

Pete_Cavan

Have to agree with Sponge Bob about one off housing. We should be encouraging more development in city/town centres. Many towns in the country have seen businesses move outside the town to new retail or commercial premises and this has resulted in a lot of derelict buildings within the town. This is in danger of getting worse if developments off motorways were approved.

Not 100% sure about this but I think the English planning system is very restrictive when it comes to building houses outside of towns. As far as I know you can only build a new house outside of a town envelope if you are a farmer or use the land productively in some way. I think something similar should be introduced here.

During the boom a lot of farmers sold their land to developers or decided they were developers themselves and threw up houses in crazy locations. The same also applies to industrial/commercial units. The housing stock in this country is quite high at the minute and there are enough half built housing estates that when (if ever!) completed would keep us for a good few years. One off houses in the countryside also has to be controlled.

Now is the time to reform the planning system to encourage more efficient land use. With the current hatred of developers I'm sure there would be no problem getting support for this. It wasn't the developers who ruined the country, it was the planning system that should have stop them.

danbohan

BluntGuy wrote: »

I don't like to "bash" the Green Party, but these kind of decisions continue to make them look worse and worse.

Of course it's as much the FF councillors' fault for supporting and encouraging completely unsustainable (and dangerous) one-off developments for the sake of gathering up votes.

I agree with Sponge_Bob that we should be extending the ban to key regional routes. In particular, many of the regional roads which have been recently detrunked are of high-standard for the road class, so the last thing we need to is start ruining them.



100% Agreed.

In addition to the benefits of making it easier to provide infrastructure, it is also better for helping to tackle social issues like rural isolation.

their are a lot more social issuies in urban locations !, rural housebuilding and lovely one off houses will be restored to normal levels after greens and their dublin 4 supporters are kicked out next election !

Amtmann

danbohan wrote: »

their are a lot more social issuies in urban locations !, rural housebuilding and lovely one off houses will be restored to normal levels after greens and their dublin 4 supporters are kicked out next election !

Do you think it is a good idea to have one-off houses built along a substantial portion of our N-roads? Or R-roads for that matter?

Sponge Bob

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Have to agree with Sponge Bob about one off housing. We should be encouraging more development in city/town centres. Many towns in the country have seen businesses move outside the town to new retail or commercial premises and this has resulted in a lot of derelict buildings within the town. This is in danger of getting worse if developments off motorways were approved.

Well the point I was really making ( not disagreeing with you Pete) is that we have no more than around 10k km of R and secondary N roads but we have 50k km of boreens and side streets. Let the development feck off there looking for road frontage. Is that clear to you danbohan??

National and regional roads serve a general communications purpose and should be off bounds for new entrances. These are not the 1970s and 1980s when country and western lounges and faux south park ranch b and bs ribboned merrily along these roads and wrecked them.

Gormley is in a sulk because he has not a single county councillor in rural Ireland, his fault

danbohan

Furet wrote: »

Do you think it is a good idea to have one-off houses built along a substantial portion of our N-roads? Or R-roads for that matter?

, do you think it was a good idea to build apartment blocks in rural towns where they had no place what so ever and where they are now virtully worthless , ireland has a tradion or rural dwelling , it is not england or europe where there is a tradition of villages. their of course has to be ''good'' planning in relation to acess onto N +R roads but it can be done

Sponge Bob

danbohan wrote: »

of course has to be ''good'' planning in relation to acess onto N +R roads but it can be done

There can, stop building new openings and start retiring existing ones through sharing them and pulling walls and hedges out of sightlines.

Let the one offs bugger off up the L roads from now on.

L1011

danbohan wrote: »

, do you think it was a good idea to build apartment blocks in rural towns where they had no place what so ever and where they are now virtully worthless , ireland has a tradion or rural dwelling , it is not england or europe where there is a tradition of villages. their of course has to be ''good'' planning in relation to acess onto N +R roads but it can be done

**** tradition. One off housing is unsustainable and unsustainable traditions need to die.

Our 'tradition' of rural living involved subsistance farming, remember.

BluntGuy

danbohan wrote: »

their are a lot more social issuies in urban locations !,

And rural isolation is not one of them.

Regardless of the problems facing urban locations, one-off housing is not an acceptable alternative. Clusters of houses would allow most of the benefits of the countryside - space, air, privacy, quiet etc., whilst allowing at least some economy-of-scale with regard to provision of services such as water, power and phonelines etc. As well as helping to tackle to aforementioned to rural isolation.

Urban areas have social issues too, but that is not relevant to the topic at hand.

However, I may be veering slightly off-topic myself. I would no sooner like to see a cluster of houses on a national or regional route, any more than a one-off development. Either type of development must be situated on local routes.

rural housebuilding and lovely one off houses will be restored to normal levels after greens and their dublin 4 supporters are kicked out next election !

The people who champion unsustainable rural development should have no right to destroy our countryside and devalue our road infrastructure in the manner they are doing.

danbohan wrote: »

, do you think it was a good idea to build apartment blocks in rural towns where they had no place what so ever and where they are now virtully worthless , ireland has a tradion or rural dwelling , it is not england or europe where there is a tradition of villages. their of course has to be ''good'' planning in relation to acess onto N +R roads but it can be done

I no more support ugly, out-of-space apartment blocks or unnecessary housing estates in rural towns than I support out-of-place, dangerous one-off housing on national or regional routes.

Ireland has a proud tradition of me fein and selfishness. People think they have a god-given right to live or build whatever they like, wherever they like regardless of the negative implications on the rest of society.

I'm not pro mass-urbanisation. I don't believe mega conurbations are the answer. I am pro common sense though. And common sense dictates to me that is not socially and economically sustainable nor responsible to allow the fixation on one-off bungaloes that are recking our countryside and making it difficult to plan and provide infrastructure to continue.

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

**** tradition. One off housing is unsustainable and unsustainable traditions need to die.

Our 'tradition' of rural living involved subsistance farming, remember.

If you look long into the future*, it may well return to subsistence farming.

*when oil supplies dwindle to the point where manual labour is again required to farm.

L1011

Deleted User wrote: »

If you look long into the future*, it may well return to subsistence farming.

*when oil supplies dwindle to the point where manual labour is again required to farm.

And yet none of these one-off houses have enough land for subsistance farming, nor are they generally suitable for living in in an oil-free world...

MYOB

MYOB wrote: »

And yet none of these one-off houses have enough land for subsistance farming, nor are they generally suitable for living in in an oil-free world...

Very true, unfortunately, but at least they'll be ready farmhands available when TSHTF

danbohan

MYOB wrote: »

**** tradition. One off housing is unsustainable and unsustainable traditions need to die.

Our 'tradition' of rural living involved subsistance farming, remember.

people who choose to live in mass urban areas eg dublin should have no input what so ever in what is built or what happens in the countryside , they should be allowed special permits to visit the countryside on certain days of the year on condition that the return to their prison sorry urban hovel by dusk , basically what the problem is is just jealousys that they have live in their 2 up 2 down{do they have indoor toilets nowdays}? while those of us in countryside live in palatial mansions !

BluntGuy

danbohan wrote: »

people who choose to live in mass urban areas eg dublin should have no input what so ever in what is built or what happens in the countryside, they should be allowed special permits to visit the countryside on certain days of the year on condition that the return to their prison sorry urban hovel by dusk , basically what the problem is is just jealousys that they have live in their 2 up 2 down{do they have indoor toilets nowdays}? while those of us in countryside live in palatial mansions !

No the problem is that it is more difficult and more expensive to provide infrastructure and services to one-off homes, and that allowing developments on national and regional roads very often has a negative impact on both traffic and road safety. And that's to say nothing of the potential political problems associated with getting planning permission for said developments (though the similar issues occur with urban planning too), but that's for another forum altogether.

L1011

danbohan wrote: »

people who choose to live in mass urban areas eg dublin should have no input what so ever in what is built or what happens in the countryside , they should be allowed special permits to visit the countryside on certain days of the year on condition that the return to their prison sorry urban hovel by dusk , basically what the problem is is just jealousys that they have live in their 2 up 2 down{do they have indoor toilets nowdays}? while those of us in countryside live in palatial mansions !

Someone has a serious complex about this.

Your one-off house is unsustainable. Its environmentally damaging - your septic tank, the extra travel you need to do for work, school, shops, etc. Its economically damaging for the state as a whole - the costs of providing water, power, telecoms and broadband; school travel if applicable; social care for older residents.

You don't need to live in "mass urban areas" or in a "2 up 2 down hovel"- I live in a 5 bedroom house in a regional town (ish). I have public transport, piped sewage, cable and telephone broadband, shops and services I can walk to....

And I'm FROM a rural area, as it happens. There's nothing to be jealous about being isolated, or a massive burden on the state.

danbohan

BluntGuy wrote: »

No the problem is that it is more difficult and more expensive to provide infrastructure and services to one-off homes, and that allowing developments on national and regional roads very often has a negative impact on both traffic and road safety. And that's to say nothing of the potential political problems associated with getting planning permission for said developments (though the similar issues occur with urban planning too), but that's for another forum altogether.

yes your right . the real problem is as you say getting planning and that is only going get harder , anyway when you take places like leitrim roscommon longford with thousands of empty houses and potencialy declining populations in short to medium term future its hard {even for me } to justify one off housing

danbohan

MYOB wrote: »

Someone has a serious complex about this.

Your one-off house is unsustainable. Its environmentally damaging - your septic tank, the extra travel you need to do for work, school, shops, etc. Its economically damaging for the state as a whole - the costs of providing water, power, telecoms and broadband; school travel if applicable; social care for older residents.

You don't need to live in "mass urban areas" or in a "2 up 2 down hovel"- I live in a 5 bedroom house in a regional town (ish). I have public transport, piped sewage, cable and telephone broadband, shops and services I can walk to....

And I'm FROM a rural area, as it happens. There's nothing to be jealous about being isolated, or a massive burden on the state.

you may be from rural area but you certainly dont seem to know much about building in a rural area , the cost of providing water , esb ,sewerage etc are very high and paid for by the person building the house , you see the clamour now when talk of water meters in urban areas , people building houses in rural areas provide most of the cost of the services they use unlike their urban counterparts who demand it. lastly with modern sewerage systems installed in one houses are very efficent and are probably much more envoirmentally friendly than your sewerage scheme, maybe when your negative equity clears up you can get a field from an uncle and build yourself a nice one off house and start living again .

L1011

danbohan wrote: »

you may be from rural area but you certainly dont seem to know much about building in a rural area , the cost of providing water , esb ,sewerage etc are very high and paid for by the person building the house , you see the clamour now when talk of water meters in urban areas , people building houses in rural areas provide most of the cost of the services they use unlike their urban counterparts who demand it. lastly with modern sewerage systems installed in one houses are very efficent and are probably much more envoirmentally friendly than your sewerage scheme, maybe when your negative equity clears up you can get a field from an uncle and build yourself a nice one off house and start living again .

A fraction of the cost of providing water and power to rural houses are paid by the person building the house. You're absolutely delusional if you think they cover "most of the cost".

On the power front its a minutely higher unit cost, thats all - doesn't come close to covering the infrastructural costs. On the telecoms front it may be a private company you're riding but that still reflects in higher line rental & call charges for everyone who's not a selfish bastard. And its only those on group water schemes that are paying for it - not those who have managed to make a council pay tens of thousands to pipe them up.

And 27000 septic tanks is many times more polluting than one modern waste water treatment plant, no matter how modern the units are.

I don't see how throwing myself in to the back arse of nowhere, isolated from services and other human beings could be seen as "living again", and the house I live in is paid for, thanks.

I'm also never, ever bringing kids up in the level of social isolation one-off rural living causes. If you want your children to be anti-social misfits, by all means...

BluntGuy

danbohan wrote: »

yes your right . the real problem is as you say getting planning and that is only going get harder ,

Evidently not if Gormley and the FF apes get their way.

anyway when you take places like leitrim roscommon longford with thousands of empty houses and potencialy declining populations in short to medium term future its hard {even for me } to justify one off housing

If we were to try and quantify the justication for one-off housing on a scale of 1-10, I'm sure we'd be in negative figures by now.

people building houses in rural areas provide most of the cost of the services they use unlike their urban counterparts who demand it.

Actually your urban counterparts provide much of the cost of YOUR services. If it weren't for the urban areas which generate the majority of the tax revenue and provide the greatest number of customers over which to spread cost, one-off rural services would be completely and utterly unaffordable.

As for the demanding. Don't get me started on the yappers in rural areas who demand such ridiculous things as an hourly bus service to get them directly from their house in some random field to the Middle-Of-Nowhere Central or swimming pools for tiny villages. Urban people may demand certain services, but they have every right to demand a decent bus service and good broadband, because that is the part of the appeal and function of living in a town or city. That excellent services are easier and more affordable to provide and hence available (not that I'm saying urban dwellers don't sometimes make silly demands).

People who elect to build their house halfway up a mountain or dump their horrible McMansion in a scenic area are responsible for pushing up overall costs of services for all of us. You can correct me if I'm wrong but I think 1 in 3 houses built over the last decade was a one-off house. That's ludicrous.

lastly with modern sewerage systems installed in one houses are very efficent and are probably much more envoirmentally friendly than your sewerage scheme

Trust me, they... aren't.

Sponge Bob

BluntGuy wrote: »

Evidently not if Gormley and the FF apes get their way. :(t.

Right, can we go back to the issue of protecting N and R road from gobdaws who want to wreck them. eg Gormley and FF

Mr Gormley will be in the firing line from 1 July when the water framework directive is activated and the EPA starts shutting down rural septic tanks and the councils install water meters universally. This is a political sop before that particular storm that will start..... any day now in fact

Sponge Bob

Sponge Bob wrote: »

Right, can we go back to the issue of protecting N and R road from gobdaws who want to wreck them. eg Gormley and FF

Mr Gormley will be in the firing line from 1 July when the water framework directive is activated and the EPA starts shutting down rural septic tanks and the councils install water meters universally. This is a political sop before that particular storm that will start..... any day now in fact

Yes i suppose that's the real issue, one-offs and sewerage disposal.
The rules are so tight now that the majority of new applications are being refused regardless of their location. Anyway I see nothing wring in building alongside a "main" road, providing you use an existing side road for access, i.e. no new opening to the main road.


As for shutting down existing septic tanks, that's really going to stir up the you know what! (literally)

Stonewolf

danbohan wrote: »

, do you think it was a good idea to build apartment blocks in rural towns where they had no place what so ever and where they are now virtully worthless , ireland has a tradion or rural dwelling , it is not england or europe where there is a tradition of villages. their of course has to be ''good'' planning in relation to acess onto N +R roads but it can be done

I'm going to nip this in the bud right now. Ireland just like everywhere else has a tradition of nuclear settlement. This "tradition" argument is nonsense related to the fact that as a population we are still very close to our agrarian past unlike most developed countries which have a long history of industrialisation and the urbanisation that comes with it.

If you want to live in the country, fine, do so, but don't trot out some rediculous semi-justification for building a single house and all the required support structures beside another single house with all the required support structures along a road the quality of which is increasingly degraded by an excess of one off developments.

Country development should be in clusters, this doesn't mean it has to be in town but it does mean that if you want to build a house you either build it in a cluster and use the shared resources of that cluster or you get planning permission for a cluster and build all the support structures required to support the future filling in of that clusters allotments. That way a half dozen or so houses can share a single access point onto/off a road, they can share sewage (using a small treatment plant), they can have one water, communications and power trunk feeding their connections requiring less works when installing or when something goes wrong. They can walk between their houses without braving the road, they can even do small community projects like erecting a small wind generator, throwing up a few solar cells or even combine heating systems. This is the spirit of traditional Irish settlement, not mansions on the mountain top.

JupiterKid

Stonewolf wrote: »

I'm going to nip this in the bud right now. Ireland just like everywhere else has a tradition of nuclear settlement. This "tradition" argument is nonsense related to the fact that as a population we are still very close to our agrarian past unlike most developed countries which have a long history of industrialisation and the urbanisation that comes with it.

If you want to live in the country, fine, do so, but don't trot out some rediculous semi-justification for building a single house and all the required support structures beside another single house with all the required support structures along a road the quality of which is increasingly degraded by an excess of one off developments.

Country development should be in clusters, this doesn't mean it has to be in town but it does mean that if you want to build a house you either build it in a cluster and use the shared resources of that cluster or you get planning permission for a cluster and build all the support structures required to support the future filling in of that clusters allotments. That way a half dozen or so houses can share a single access point onto/off a road, they can share sewage (using a small treatment plant), they can have one water, communications and power trunk feeding their connections requiring less works when installing or when something goes wrong. They can walk between their houses without braving the road, they can even do small community projects like erecting a small wind generator, throwing up a few solar cells or even combine heating systems. This is the spirit of traditional Irish settlement, not mansions on the mountain top.

Completely agree with that post.

One-off rural houses are all about total mindless greed and selfishness as they don't internalise the huge external costs involved in their functioning. At least urban dwellings do.

I sincerely hope the new EU water directive will effectively sound the death knell for new one-off rural house building.
Ireland needs to mature and move on - McMansions in the scenic countryside with leaking, polluting septic tanks are the sign of a deeply immature and shallow society.

Stonewolf

Stonewolf wrote: »

I'm going to nip this in the bud right now. Ireland just like everywhere else has a tradition of nuclear settlement. This "tradition" argument is nonsense related to the fact that as a population we are still very close to our agrarian past unlike most developed countries which have a long history of industrialisation and the urbanisation that comes with it.

If you want to live in the country, fine, do so, but don't trot out some rediculous semi-justification for building a single house and all the required support structures beside another single house with all the required support structures along a road the quality of which is increasingly degraded by an excess of one off developments.

Country development should be in clusters, this doesn't mean it has to be in town but it does mean that if you want to build a house you either build it in a cluster and use the shared resources of that cluster or you get planning permission for a cluster and build all the support structures required to support the future filling in of that clusters allotments. That way a half dozen or so houses can share a single access point onto/off a road, they can share sewage (using a small treatment plant), they can have one water, communications and power trunk feeding their connections requiring less works when installing or when something goes wrong. They can walk between their houses without braving the road, they can even do small community projects like erecting a small wind generator, throwing up a few solar cells or even combine heating systems. This is the spirit of traditional Irish settlement, not mansions on the mountain top.

The cluster housing idea, unfortunately falls foul of a planning regulation that prohihits "ribbon development" in other words no more than three houses in a row. The cluster idea would need an estate of one-offs to be built next to existing community to work. It can work, it should work, but it won't work because of the self interest of landowners etc.

danbohan

JupiterKid wrote: »

Completely agree with that post.

One-off rural houses are all about total mindless greed and selfishness as they don't internalise the huge external costs involved in their functioning. At least urban dwellings do.

I sincerely hope the new EU water directive will effectively sound the death knell for new one-off rural house building.
Ireland needs to mature and move on - McMansions in the scenic countryside with leaking, polluting septic tanks are the sign of a deeply immature and shallow society.

sign of a deeply immature and shallow society

i think thats best exlempified here by the urbanites in the 3 bed carboard semis who cannot afford or cope with living in the countryside and are extreamly jealous of those of us who do .

Aidan1

Country development should be in clusters, this doesn't mean it has to be in town but it does mean that if you want to build a house you either build it in a cluster and use the shared resources of that cluster or you get planning permission for a cluster and build all the support structures required to support the future filling in of that clusters allotments.

Where I'm from we called clusters of houses and businesses in rural areas 'villages', and they worked quite well. You can centralise services like schools and shops, and both public and privately provided services can be delivered far more cheaply. Then came the 70s, and Bungalow Blitz, and ribbon development, and Dick Roche and relaxed rural planning guidelines and the celtic tiger and it all went a bit pear shaped ...

Long story short, restraining one off housing in rural areas is not an argument about 'Dublin vs everywhere else', it's an argument in favour of nucleated settlement in general. Rural villages can be planned and organised in such a way as to provide the benefits of rural life, with an approximation of the economic and allocative efficiencies associated with urban living. They are also far more energy efficient than spreading development thinly over large areas, and services like waste water treatment, telecoms (incl FTTH) electricity and a whole raft of social services can be provided far more efficiently.

Pete_Cavan

Like I said in my earlier post, any new planning legislation should promote development within city/town/village boundaries and encourage the use of derelict buildings. Particularly when planning commercial/retail developments as the recent flood of large developments off bypasses etc. which has destroyed most regional towns.

With regard to housing there is enough existing housing stock in this country, between what is currently occupided and unoccupied, that we do not need to take any more land for housing for many years to come. For housing outside of towns and villages we should be encouraging people to use existing houses, either renovating them or knocking and rebuilding them and reusing the existing entrance, utilities etc. subject to planning of course. People can still build their dream home in the middle of nowhere but it will just have to be on the site of an existing house with existing services.

ForiegnNational

Firstly, danbohan, as a fellow rural "one-off" house dweller, can I say you are showing a complete lack of any credibility in any of your postings.

The Town vs Countryside argument is obvious in the arguments...

For the town dwellers, the concept of having to put in your own well and water treatment system and receiving your TV via Satellite and Broadband via radio seem alien to you as you are living in the "wired/piped" world. We do have to live "off-grid" with the exception of telephone and electricity, which ARE paid for by the builder of a new house and are not shared across everybody.

For countryside dwellers like danbohan, of course once off development MUST stop. It is an absolute blight on the countryside, where every gombeen of a farmer has the "right" to build three god awful houses on their land, just because they happen to be born first and were therefore given the land by their parents (for FARMING not SELLING I will hasten to add).

Yes the UK has incredibly tight planning permission, why do you think that every stone barn in the countryside is now converted and the only "new developments" you see are clustered in villages and are therefore attached to sustainable infrastructure.

France is slightly different as the countryside is becoming denuded of people moving to cities for work. This has lead to the second home phenomena, where most of rural France is owned by Irish/English citizens.

Germany again (in the bits I know) does not have random one-off dwellings everywhere. New developments are clustered.

Are you saying that once again Ireland has found some magic formula, just like the housing boom, that lets us ignore what the rest of Europe has learned the hard way?

Stonewolf

Deleted User wrote: »

The cluster housing idea, unfortunately falls foul of a planning regulation that prohihits "ribbon development" in other words no more than three houses in a row. The cluster idea would need an estate of one-offs to be built next to existing community to work. It can work, it should work, but it won't work because of the self interest of landowners etc.

I've seen a couple of developments that are a bit like this but not quite fully there, mostly quite near villages. There's one near the family place in Donegal where a developer built everything you'd expect on a small estate, road, utilities, footpath etc ... but left the allotments at outline planning and sold them off.

Aidan1 wrote: »

Where I'm from we called clusters of houses and businesses in rural areas 'villages', and they worked quite well.

I'm not talking about villages, I'm talking about groups of about a half dozen houses, my parents generation in Donegal all have houses near each other on family land, but they're all one offs and a mile or two out of town. They could have all built their houses near each other with shared services instead creating a cluster. They have no interest in living in the village itself, they shouldn't be forced to.

Aidan1

They have no interest in living in the village itself, they shouldn't be forced to.

There we disagree. Their 'right' to live in the middle of no where (there is no such 'right' btw) conveys a significant short term cost on everyone else in the State, and an even more significant long term cost in terms of lost potential and opportunity cost.

If they are willing to pay the full economic cost of schools, postal service, telecoms, electricity provision, fines for missing water quality standards, transport (as in the full economic cost of having a public road to their front door, and pay for their own transport fuel when oil hits $200 dollars per barrel), broadcasting, social services, health services, and lost revenue from tourism due to landscape damage (oh, and social welfare payments for the new unemployed who can't afford to work because they live too far from anywhere that is capable of generating employment) for their one off dwelling, then maybe, but I doubt it.

Like ForeignNational points out, across most of Europe new one off rural dwellings are effectively out of the question for all of the reasons listed above. Decades of experience has informed their decision around spatial planning of housing, and they wouldn't even consider allowing people build a house wherever they want. It's only elements the powerful (and landowning) rural lobby in Irish political life that apparently knows different.

danbohan

ForiegnNational wrote: »

Firstly, danbohan, as a fellow rural "one-off" house dweller, can I say you are showing a complete lack of any credibility in any of your postings.

The Town vs Countryside argument is obvious in the arguments...

For the town dwellers, the concept of having to put in your own well and water treatment system and receiving your TV via Satellite and Broadband via radio seem alien to you as you are living in the "wired/piped" world. We do have to live "off-grid" with the exception of telephone and electricity, which ARE paid for by the builder of a new house and are not shared across everybody.

For countryside dwellers like danbohan, of course once off development MUST stop. It is an absolute blight on the countryside, where every gombeen of a farmer has the "right" to build three god awful houses on their land, just because they happen to be born first and were therefore given the land by their parents (for FARMING not SELLING I will hasten to add).

Yes the UK has incredibly tight planning permission, why do you think that every stone barn in the countryside is now converted and the only "new developments" you see are clustered in villages and are therefore attached to sustainable infrastructure.

France is slightly different as the countryside is becoming denuded of people moving to cities for work. This has lead to the second home phenomena, where most of rural France is owned by Irish/English citizens.

Germany again (in the bits I know) does not have random one-off dwellings everywhere. New developments are clustered.

Are you saying that once again Ireland has found some magic formula, just like the housing boom, that lets us ignore what the rest of Europe has learned the hard way?

For countryside dwellers like danbohan, of course once off development MUST stop

you say you live in a one off developement in countryside ? , are you willing to give it up? probably not nor am i , but you are very willing to not give that privilage to other people in the future , you suffer from i am alright jack syndrome now rest of you just fjuk off .one off housing has a place in the developement of the country same as any other building , it must be controlled and regulated but it must not be stopped .you may well live in the countryside but you are very much an alien to it as your attidude shows ,this is ireland not cornwall

ForiegnNational

danbohan wrote: »

you say you live in a one off developement in countryside ? , are you willing to give it up? probably not nor am i , but you are very willing to not give that privilage to other people in the future , you suffer from i am alright jack syndrome now rest of you just fjuk off .one off housing has a place in the developement of the country same as any other building , it must be controlled and regulated but it must not be stopped .you may well live in the countryside but you are very much an alien to it as your attidude shows ,this is ireland not cornwall

No danbohan, this is not an I'm alright jack, f* you all...

The property I live in is in the middle of West Cork, was built in the 1970's by a relative and benefits from all of the space and fresh air I can dream of.

However, I have also done everything I can to reduce the carbon footprint of owning such a wasteful property. The internal garage is gone (huge cold soak to the rest of the house), the walls are double insulated, the attic triple. We have energy saving bl**dy everything (apart from my WIFI which I stated was a fundamental human right).

I am not a rabid green (see other postings to confirm this). I was born and raised in the countryside (I'm a farmers son FFS), but have lived in some of the worlds largest cities. So I know exactly what I have given up in amenities to give my children the quality of life they have (for the previous poster who said there was nothing to do in the countryside, I would like to show him the active GAA, Rugby, Scouts and evening activities that even children living in the middle of cities would be envious of).

I am however a realist. I presume you have some ability to filter out the absolute scourge that once-off housing is having on the countryside. How many of these one off houses do all they possibly can to both minimalise their visual and environmental impacts?

Do you not drive around the countryside when you are home seeing the blight that the ability to build god awful bungalows (1980's), or 3000 sq ft mansions (2000's) has done to the country?

Danbohan, you my friend are unfortunately taking the side of the gombeenism and ignorance that is too rife in the country. The same attitude that when related to Bankers/Developers, you sound like you would be one of the most vocal and vociferous critics!

danbohan

ForiegnNational wrote: »

No danbohan, this is not an I'm alright jack, f* you all...

The property I live in is in the middle of West Cork, was built in the 1970's by a relative and benefits from all of the space and fresh air I can dream of.

However, I have also done everything I can to reduce the carbon footprint of owning such a wasteful property. The internal garage is gone (huge cold soak to the rest of the house), the walls are double insulated, the attic triple. We have energy saving bl**dy everything (apart from my WIFI which I stated was a fundamental human right).

I am not a rabid green (see other postings to confirm this). I was born and raised in the countryside (I'm a farmers son FFS), but have lived in some of the worlds largest cities. So I know exactly what I have given up in amenities to give my children the quality of life they have (for the previous poster who said there was nothing to do in the countryside, I would like to show him the active GAA, Rugby, Scouts and evening activities that even children living in the middle of cities would be envious of).

I am however a realist. I presume you have some ability to filter out the absolute scourge that once-off housing is having on the countryside. How many of these one off houses do all they possibly can to both minimalise their visual and environmental impacts?

Do you not drive around the countryside when you are home seeing the blight that the ability to build god awful bungalows (1980's), or 3000 sq ft mansions (2000's) has done to the country?

Danbohan, you my friend are unfortunately taking the side of the gombeenism and ignorance that is too rife in the country. The same attitude that when related to Bankers/Developers, you sound like you would be one of the most vocal and vociferous critics!

gombeenism and ignorance is a green rant , my intreast is in the survival of rural way of life not as a plaything for weekend urbanites or green wellied brigade wanting to play at countryside squires wonder which of the two cattergories you fall in to , both maybe . you want take a drive through rural northern ireland , have a look at rural housing and see what bringing forighn concept of rural dwelling does to a countryside and what restrictive planning can create , yes their is a lot of hideous planning and one off houses here in the countryside and a lot of hideous housing and apartment blocks in towns and villages too , you can however if all of this bothers you so much bugger off back to blighty!

Stonewolf

Aidan1 wrote: »

There we disagree. Their 'right' to live in the middle of no where (there is no such 'right' btw) conveys a significant short term cost on everyone else in the State, and an even more significant long term cost in terms of lost potential and opportunity cost.

If they are willing to pay the full economic cost of schools, postal service, telecoms, electricity provision, fines for missing water quality standards, transport (as in the full economic cost of having a public road to their front door, and pay for their own transport fuel when oil hits $200 dollars per barrel), broadcasting, social services, health services, and lost revenue from tourism due to landscape damage (oh, and social welfare payments for the new unemployed who can't afford to work because they live too far from anywhere that is capable of generating employment) for their one off dwelling, then maybe, but I doubt it.

Like ForeignNational points out, across most of Europe new one off rural dwellings are effectively out of the question for all of the reasons listed above. Decades of experience has informed their decision around spatial planning of housing, and they wouldn't even consider allowing people build a house wherever they want. It's only elements the powerful (and landowning) rural lobby in Irish political life that apparently knows different.

Well, from your response, you seem to have read some of my posts but concentrated on one or two words out of context and not actually understood the arguments being made. You should also go back to that list you made and read over it, because some of those things are borne fully and always will be by residents (like transport fuel costs!).

We live in a democracy that values freedom and ownership. If someone wants to build a house, on thier land, in the middle of nowhere why should they be told absolutely no-way, no-how? Our government is supposedly there to serve the peoples interests and people want houses in the country for whatever reason. The key is not to have a Daily Mail kneejerk reaction and ban all rural development because that's against the principles of our society, nor does demanding that all development be linked to the land because it doesn't stop a farmer building a house on his own land and selling it.

Now the fact is that I agree with the argument that once off houses are a blight on our countryside and a drain on our resources, the answer however is not to rant and rave about it but to come up with a solution. A solution that balances the need to protect our countryside and reduce the heavy cost of provision for once off houses whilst at the same time improving the quality of country development and allowing people to still locate their house in a rural area. Clustering is one such solution to that problem, forcing people at gunpoint to live in a tower block in their local village isn't.

ForiegnNational

danbohan wrote: »

survival of rural way of life

Since when has selling prime agricultural land to ex townies "surviving the rural way of life"?

paulm17781

ForiegnNational wrote: »

Since when has selling prime agricultural land to ex townies "surviving the rural way of life"?

Why are you bothering? DanBohan represents everything I hate about this country, totally selfish and fixated on an unsustainable model, refusing to even consider the problems that the likes of he raises.

Aidan1

Since when has selling prime agricultural land to ex townies "surviving the rural way of life"?

Since about 1977-8, when the 5 year holiday after accession to the EU and CAP ended.

Well, from your response, you seem to have read some of my posts but concentrated on one or two words out of context and not actually understood the arguments being made

Nope, I fully understand the arguments being made, I just happen to disagree fundamentally with them - I was just being polite. Clustering certainly works, and humanity has long since evolved a social, political and economic logic around that. It's called 'the town' (or 'village', or 'city'). Simply clustering two or three houses adds nothing in terms of the economies of scale involved. You still have all of the problems around infrastructure and service provision -all you've done is decreased the marginal cost very slightly. It's not a solution, it's not even a way of avoiding the problem, it's probably best described as an excuse.

Also, a reference to a 'tower block' in a rural village is remarkably pointless, trite and reveals an element of the "all urban=Ballymun/heroin/depravity/crime/single mother" meme that runs through the background of much of the one off rural housing argument. For the record, not everyone who lives in an urban area is a degenerate drug taking mess, in much the same way as not every rural dweller is a paragon of moral virtue.

On the transport fuel issue, my comments were made in reference to the refrain from rural based politicans and lobby groups that increases in fuel prices hurt rural communities more because they are 'forced to drive for 40 or 50 miles a day to their place of work'. In 2008 when oil prices spiked, there were even calls from rural TDs for a subsidy or tax relief for rural areas to cover this. What happens when diesel is at €3 per litre? Those who live in the middle of nowhere will see their costs increase dramatically (for everything - not just moving themselves around), and then the 'special case' pleading will start again. We could circumvent this, and an element of our huge reliance on imported fossil fuels, by simply planning better, both on a regional basis and on a national basis.

Jayuu

danbohan wrote: »

i think thats best exlempified here by the urbanites in the 3 bed carboard semis who cannot afford or cope with living in the countryside and are extreamly jealous of those of us who do .

One would think that if we "urbanites" were jealous of those of you who live in the countryside we would be clamouring for the rules to be eased so that we could build out palatial country mansions. And yet the opposite seems true. Its we "urbanites" who are saying that this shouldn't happen.

Think you've kind of undermined your own argument here.

danbohan

ForiegnNational wrote: »

Since when has selling prime agricultural land to ex townies "surviving the rural way of life"?

i dont sell land to townies , i sold very nice one off houses to them and all them are now happily living in gorgeous negative equity , thanks to some very very good and helpfull politicians i managed to get 14 houses from a few little fields . still have few fields left waiting for next boom whenever that comes along and building will continuie in the countryside despite objections from people who have no history, knowledge ,or sense of place !

Don't insult other posters. Infracted. [/Mod]

danbohan

Jayuu wrote: »

One would think that if we "urbanites" were jealous of those of you who live in the countryside we would be clamouring for the rules to be eased so that we could build out palatial country mansions. And yet the opposite seems true. Its we "urbanites" who are saying that this shouldn't happen.

Think you've kind of undermined your own argument here.

because you know you cant cope , your like bees outside a hive

ForiegnNational

Aidan1 wrote: »

Since about 1977-8, when the 5 year holiday after accession to the EU and CAP ended.

Your right other than REPS payments, why would you keep arable land when you could sell 1/3 of an acre to a townie/foreign national for the best part of a third of a million?

Why would any farmer want to farm anything other than building sites?

Perhaps you have hit a certain nail on the head! Subsidy Farming vs Planning Permission Farming...

ForiegnNational

danbohan wrote: »

i dont sell land to townies , i sold very nice one off houses to them and all them are now happily living in gorgeous negative equity

As I said before, I am no green, but I am educated and aware of the impact that such attitudes have on the country as a whole.

I feel no jealousy towards you farming building sites (I readily admit you will have made far more money than actually turning the sod), but don't try and use and empty argument such as "Survival of the rural environment" when you happily admit turning this very environment into one of your despised urban areas?

Oh, and by the way, if you didn't realise it, there never will be another property boom like this one. I am glad to say therefore that the rest of whatever is left of your fathers farm that you didn't sell off, will happily stay arable until well after you are under it!

danbohan

ForiegnNational wrote: »

As I said before, I am no green, but I am educated and aware of the impact that such attitudes have on the country as a whole.

I feel no jealousy towards you farming building sites (I readily admit you will have made far more money than actually turning the sod), but don't try and use and empty argument such as "Survival of the rural environment" when you happily admit turning this very environment into one of your despised urban areas?

Oh, and by the way, if you didn't realise it, there never will be another property boom like this one. I am glad to say therefore that the rest of whatever is left of your fathers farm that you didn't sell off, will happily stay arable until well after you are under it!

not my fathers farm , little bit i bought , i know the type that play at farming in this country , luckily we have a very benevolent social welfare system to make up for their mistakes