If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on [email protected] for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact [email protected]

Street View rural Ireland vs. Street View rural Wales: the effects of one-off housing



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,132 ✭✭✭Stonewolf

    Right, I've been absent from this board for a while because the arguments were all the same and circular but this one particularly gets up my nose.

    1) We cannot continue to build one off housing in the country in the same manner as we have been due to the detrimental social impacts both monetary and in terms of quality of life, spatial utility and character of the countryside
    2) We cannot simply blanket ban any development in the countryside

    Taking those two facts into consideration we can see that neither extremist approach advocated by the people who usually post on these threads is conductive to a valid solution.

    I'm going to point out here that I rent an apartment in Dublin but grew up in a one-off in Donegal (in fact, my mother built a new one off a few years ago because the old one wasn't adequate for the family any more and sold the old one).

    Someone not too far up this thread commented on ring forts and how one-offs have been part of the Irish character for ever, this is WRONG. A ring fort contained a number of dwellings. Irish people are not unique and special, we have historicly followed nuclear settlement patterns just like everyone else.

    The key to sorting out the disgrace we have made of the countryside is to balance the wants and needs of the various client groups who we can identify as:
    1) Denizens: The people who live there
    2) Urbanites: People who do not live there but wish to access its amienities or live there on a part time basis
    3) Tourists: People who come from elsewhere to see our supposed great natural beauty

    Denizens feel that any encroachment on thier percieved right to settle in their home area is a threat to thier way of life and blame urbanites for any attempt to control thier settlement patterns. Urbanites wish to use the countryside as an amienity and it is recognised internationally that there is a significant social benefit in this, many urbanites also wish to "escape" from city living on at least a part time basis and some wish to have holiday homes. Tourists are fleeting visitors who naturally want to see a countryside without much development, they are the least important category of the three but do provide a financial benefit to popular areas.

    So how then do we tackle the various and conflicting needs of these groups?

    What we can see is that some rural developments are neccessary to accomodate denizens who may (due to occupation or caring needs) be locationally tied. These are people who need to settle very close to an existing development though perhaps not neccessarily directly next to it.

    Some accomodation for non-locationally-tied persons is also needed be they denizens or urbanites, and for the sake of preservation of the utility and character of the countryside and reduction in social/financial burden these should be biased towards the edges of existing nuclear settlements (villages and such).

    People wanting to build in the countryside also desire individualism in thier development, and therefore it is advisable to follow a model which allows infrastructural provision for a number of developments without setting forth what form those developments will take bar a few simple considerations (location of accessway etc ...).

    A solution therefore could be to define two prefered forms of development:

    A farm cluster where an existing farm (or some other industrial habitation) requires the development of an additional dwelling which is close enough that it can share access and utilities but not neccessarily be right next to the original farm dwelling.

    A site estate where common utilities and access are provided to a number of sites which are sold for individual development by the purchasers. Permission for these developments would be biased towards schemes on the outskirts of existing nuclear settlements.

    "Traditional" one-off developments could then be examined considerably more closely by the planning authorities without concern that numerous rejections might draw significant outrage.

    This kind of practice would reduce the social costs of one-off housing (isolation, duplication and inefficiency of utilities, excess accessways, etc..) by clustering developments which also increases concentration which allows for greater unbroken areas of undeveloped land. Moving developments closer to existing nuclear settlements also increases these areas and while it does draw criticism from more vocal proponents of dispersed settlement living on the edge of a small village does not present a large reduction in the "countryside" factor but does provide a considerable increase in the quality of life due to proximity to services and reduction on motor vehicle reliance*. Increase in the size of areas of unbroken undeveloped land enhances the character of the countryside which is important to all three client groups and provides space for the potential siting of ameinities which would also benefit all three.

    When it comes to issues like this there are no "sides" and there is no "winning" unless it's the win that comes from working together to achieve a common goal.

    * don't get me wrong here, I like cars

  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 25,234 ✭✭✭✭Sponge Bob

    There is a damning collection of Streetviews of Ghost Estates on this website, . The problems do not begin and end with one offs.

  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex

    DWCommuter wrote: »
    Take Sligo County Council for example. In 2003 they rowed in behind the WRC reopening up to Colooney. Since then they have presumedly granted planning permission for these houses (see link below) that have their driveways built across the actual track.,-95.677068&sspn=47.617464,93.076172&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Ireland&ll=54.18685,-8.503718&spn=0.017302,0.045447&z=15&layer=c&cbll=54.186976,-8.503078&panoid=7hIMs1Fse4Z817idY7XgXQ&cbp=12,1.8,,0,-7.92

    It's like an episode of The Simpsons or something.

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 350 ✭✭rubensni

    murphaph wrote: »
    The proponents of rural one off living are of course, mostly from towns or cities! They are generally NOT people who have themselves grown up in a one off house. There generally is no local "need" and even if there was, people in rural Ireland can satisfy that need by living in......villages! We don't HAVE to de-populate rural Ireland by banning one-off housing. It just means that we concentrate development in villages and small towns instead, perhaps even breathing life back into them!

    Yep, Eamon O Cuimh grew up in Dublin, but now that he's unofficial spokesman for all things culchie, he's mad for letting anyone build anything, anywhere.

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

    rubensni wrote: »
    Yep, Eamon O Cuimh grew up in Dublin, but now that he's unofficial spokesman for all things culchie, he's mad for letting anyone build anything, anywhere.

    If you are going to replace the v with a mh in the minister name you might as well go the whole hog and replace the uí with aoi
    eg. Ó Cuív -> Ó Caoimh

  • Advertisement