Very rural Ireland

Cú Giobach

John_Rambo wrote: »

Pub talk educations are all very well, but you are better off getting out there and seeing your own country for yourself.

I can say with any doubt whatsoever, I have seen more of this country than the vast vast majority of its inhabitants (and have lived for over 20 years in cities and for over 20 years rurally).

(I'm sure it's all a bit tongue in cheek!!)

Glad you realise.

Kosseegan wrote: »

There may not be a Stalinist clear ouit, but neighbouring jurisdictions such as the UK and France have achieved it by proper planning.

It is ridiculous that we have to maintain a vast road network.

Our road network is essential and is used by a lot more than just people with holiday homes, these roads connect villages and townlands that have been inhabited for centuries.
If you get rid of the roads what will you do with the people who live on them besides a clear out, and how would the food get off the farm and supplies in, unless we also clear out or amalgamate small farms into larger ones.
You seem to be advocating the upheaval of a people.

It is becoming more difficult for service businesses to survive in rural areas. In many cases services such as Post Offices were provided by individuals who were prepared to accept very low pay. Incrreasingly, when these people retire, ther is no on willing to continue on the same basis. Doctors are no longer willing to do house calls to people living in isolate areas. Ambulances have to be sent out and travel long distances to deal with relatively minor incidents.
If the planners don't try and control bungalow blight, the lack of services may well do the job instead.

You do realise post offices are closing because of depopulation not re-population.
The "South Doc" service here is brilliant and I know many people who avail of it no problem whatsoever.
Ambulances have always had to cover rural areas even when the majority of the population lived rurally.

Planning needs to be addressed NOT the fact people want to live in the countryside.

Aard

Cú Giobach wrote: »

And has a very large amount of uninhabitable or very hard to access land.

Just because land is "habitable" does not mean it should be inhabited.

Aard

bk wrote: »

In other words, 100% of tax raised in urban areas of Ireland isn't spent on those areas. I don't have exact figures, but something like only 80% of the money raised in Dublin is spent in Dublin. The other 20% goes to subsidise services and infrastructure in rural areas of Ireland.

I worked it out a few years ago. Dublin lost €6,000 per capita per annum, while Mayo received €2,000 pcpa. I don't remember other counties off the top of my head.

Milk & Honey

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Our road network is essential and is used by a lot more than just people with holiday homes, these roads connect villages and townlands that have been inhabited for centuries.
If you get rid of the roads what will you do with the people who live on them besides a clear out, and how would the food get off the farm and supplies in, unless we also clear out or amalgamate small farms into larger ones.
You seem to be advocating the upheaval of a people.

Small farms should be amalgamated and in fact existing farms are enlarging by way of acquisition. This is to my mind a welcome development. The sub division of the land into tiny farms was a lunatic policy. A large farm means better use of the land and a reasonable living for the farmer. There is no need for an instant upheaval, but planning should take account of the long term desirable trend.

Cú Giobach

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Small farms should be amalgamated and in fact existing farms are enlarging by way of acquisition. This is to my mind a welcome development. The sub division of the land into tiny farms was a lunatic policy. A large farm means better use of the land and a reasonable living for the farmer. There is no need for an instant upheaval, but planning should take account of the long term desirable trend.

Indeed it will be a good living for the farmer who is left.
Its good to see people advocating one person making a good living instead of (say) 4 people making a living. Wealth needs to be divided not concentrated.
Planning and government policies should be about the equitable division of wealth and resources, not concentration into the hands of the few.
Turning land into huge farms ends up destroying communities and this type of farming usually leads to the total destruction of natural(ish) ecosystems with the removal of hedgerows and the creation of huge fields, not to mention miles of single crop use over vast tracts of land.
Personally I would much prefer a few of these holiday homes and gaudy bungalows instead of the landscape that huge farms with the resultant monocultures create.

Aard wrote: »

Just because land is "habitable" does not mean it should be inhabited.

Hmmm....What has this got to do with the context?

Cool Mo D

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Indeed it will be a good living for the farmer who is left.
Its good to see people advocating one person making a good living instead of (say) 4 people making a living. Wealth needs to be divided not concentrated.
Planning and government policies should be about the equitable division of wealth and resources, not concentration into the hands of the few.
Turning land into huge farms ends up destroying communities and this type of farming usually leads to the total destruction of natural(ish) ecosystems with the removal of hedgerows and the creation of huge fields, not to mention miles of single crop use over vast tracts of land.
Personally I would much prefer a few of these holiday homes and gaudy bungalows instead of the landscape that huge farms with the resultant monocultures create.


Hmmm....What has this got to do with the context?

There is no future in very small holdings. We do not need massive industrial scale farms, but each farm should be big enough to comfortably support a full time farmer and their family. Small farms will never be able to afford to make the most of their land, or modernise their equipment, or have the constant cash flow to develop their farm over the long term

Your plan to try and keep as many people on the land is possible is insane, and will keep rural farmers in poverty, and food prices high. If one farmer can farm 200 acres by themselves, it makes no sense to try and have 4 farmers do it.

Avoiding monoculture is best done by paying farmers to maintain wild areas on their farm.

dubhthach

I see this thread has been moved to Infrastructure. First I'd like to welcome all of ye who don't normally post in here. (we don't bite) Secondly can we keep it civil. Obviously people are going to have strong opinions on the topic (be it pro/against) but there's no need for it to get personal

-Dubh
(mod)

Kosseegan

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Indeed it will be a good living for the farmer who is left.
Its good to see people advocating one person making a good living instead of (say) 4 people making a living. Wealth needs to be divided not concentrated.
Planning and government policies should be about the equitable division of wealth and resources, not concentration into the hands of the few.
Turning land into huge farms ends up destroying communities and this type of farming usually leads to the total destruction of natural(ish) ecosystems with the removal of hedgerows and the creation of huge fields, not to mention miles of single crop use over vast tracts of land.
Personally I would much prefer a few of these holiday homes and gaudy bungalows instead of the landscape that huge farms with the resultant monocultures create.






Hmmm....What has this got to do with the context?

It was realised in the 196os that the creation of many 40 acre farms by the land commission had been a disater. Poor use was made of the land and the the country suffwered as a result. The oprocess is now being reversed. When an old farmer with 30 acres dies, the chances are that the land will be sold. If there is a family theuy will have long since left and will not be interested in scratching a living on 30 acres. The buyer will almost invariably be a neighbouring farmer. As farm supports from the Eu are wound down, this process will accelerate.

Cú Giobach

Cool Mo D wrote: »

There is no future in very small holdings. We do not need massive industrial scale farms, but each farm should be big enough to comfortably support a full time farmer and their family. Small farms will never be able to afford to make the most of their land, or modernise their equipment, or have the constant cash flow to develop their farm over the long term

Your plan to try and keep as many people on the land is possible is insane, and will keep rural farmers in poverty, and food prices high. If one farmer can farm 200 acres by themselves, it makes no sense to try and have 4 farmers do it.

Avoiding monoculture is best done by paying farmers to maintain wild areas on their farm.

I specifically said huge farms.
Where did I mention I wanted to keep as many people on the land as possible?
If people here could actually follow a discussion they would see the mention of farms was in relation to the crazy idea we should have less roads.

dubhthach

Kosseegan wrote: »

It was realised in the 196os that the creation of many 40 acre farms by the land commission had been a disater. Poor use was made of the land and the the country suffwered as a result. The oprocess is now being reversed. When an old farmer with 30 acres dies, the chances are that the land will be sold. If there is a family theuy will have long since left and will not be interested in scratching a living on 30 acres. The buyer will almost invariably be a neighbouring farmer. As farm supports from the Eu are wound down, this process will accelerate.

Are there any easily available stats regarding the breakdown of farm size? (size & percentage at/below that)

I do think that the gradual wind down of "farm income" support will have an affect on farm consolidation.

Pete_Cavan

Cú Giobach wrote: »

If people here could actually follow a discussion they would see the mention of farms was in relation to the crazy idea we should have less roads.

The idea that we should have less roads is not crazy, it is common sense. We have a huge road network which we clearly cant afford to maintain. If we had less kilometers of road to maintain then the remaining roads would be of better quality. The point was made that roads which lead nowhere and only accomodate a few individual houses along it should be handed over to those living on the road (they would probably have a better road if they maintained it themselves anyway). I dont think this has anything to do with the size of farms.

murphaph

cailinardthair wrote: »

Im going to assume you come from an urban area whether its a town or city and in some since the countryside is for everyone to an extent!! But you haven't made your life in that area and thats where your ownership stops!!! How can you justify having a say in any a privately owned area if you dont know it!!

This country has made the problem not the people who live in rural areas. Everyone is entitled to live where they like but due to the boom there is a load of empty ghost estates and abandoned buildings not in rural areas but in tiny towns.

Erm, tiny towns ARE rural Ireland. Our provincial towns and rural villages have been killed off largely by people choosing NOT to live in rural towns and villages and instead choosing to live in ribbon development/one off sites. People could have their individual style houses INSIDE rural towns and villages if we had planned properly for it. This would surely have been acceptable?

cailinardthair wrote: »

I come from Connamara. I love where I live. I have never found one off housing as a detraction when in any rural area when traveling. Maybe because im not looking for it!

That's fair enough but believe me, tourists are expecting more when they come to Ireland and they are losing interest rapidly. Word is spreading that the wilderness that once was the likes of Conemara has been replaced with a rural suburbia that can be seen anywhere. Our "unique selling point" is gone, so people depending on tourism for a living simply should be surprised that revenue is falling and will continue to fall as the facade drops.

Cú Giobach

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

The idea that we should have less roads is not crazy, it is common sense. We have a huge road network which we clearly cant afford to maintain. If we had less kilometers of road to maintain then the remaining roads would be of better quality. The point was made that roads which lead nowhere and only accomodate a few individual houses along it should be handed over to those living on the road (they would probably have a better road if they maintained it themselves anyway). I dont think this has anything to do with the size of farms.

Short cul de sacs are one thing, but the majority of roads join places and people and getting rid of them would be regretted in the future just as people now regret the removal of the railroads.
Our dispersed population needs these roads, they are a positive "thing" and getting rid of infrastructure because of a short term financial hiccough is madness.
There are a hell of a lot more small cul de sacs serving only a few houses in urban areas, do you suggest people also pay for these out of their own pockets.

markpb

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There are a hell of a lot more small cul de sacs serving only a few houses in urban areas, do you suggest people also pay for these out of their own pockets.

It already happens in Dublin (and probably other cities). The roads in gated estates are entirely paid for and maintained by the owners. All the roads in Northwood in Santry are private and paid for by the owners.

Cú Giobach

markpb wrote: »

It already happens in Dublin (and probably other cities). The roads in gated estates are entirely paid for and maintained by the owners. All the roads in Northwood in Santry are private and paid for by the owners.

We are talking about public roads.

Going back to the original question...

The current situation has largely been brought about by the availibility of cheap fuel for private transport, we are gradually transitioning from a period of cheap and plentiful energy towards a time of ever increasing energy costs and eventually fuel shortages.

Basically this will mean that there will be a reversal in the trend of choosing to live in a large house in an isolated rural area, commuting to a large (non local) town to work and driving to the nearest town with a major supermarket to shop.

I expect that in 10-20 years time about half of those isolated one-offs built since the 1990s will become abandoned as the cost of fuel will make living in them and having to rely on driving everywhere for everything plus the cost of heating an oversized house.

We will soon be at a stage where either people live close to where they work of the economy collapses as they spend so much of their income on travelling to work that they have little to spend elsewhere.

markpb

Cú Giobach wrote: »

We are talking about public roads.

Other than a quasi-legal definition, what's the difference between a private estate and a cul de sac, both of which only have a few houses? You asked if people who live in cul de sacs should pay for the upkeep of their own roads - I pointed out that in some cases, in Dublin they do. Northwood is open to the public by the way.

Cú Giobach

markpb wrote: »

Other than a quasi-legal definition, what's the difference between a private estate and a cul de sac, both of which only have a few houses? You asked if people who live in cul de sacs should pay for the upkeep of their own roads - I pointed out that in some cases, in Dublin they do. Northwood is open to the public by the way.

People all over the island have their own private roads, in rural areas they are usually called "tracks" or "driveways", in many cases (myself included) they can be quite long, some serve a number of houses and are paid for by ourselves. Nobody is demanding roads be built up to their front door and all new road building (which we all have to pay to upkeep) is done in urban or what will become urban areas.
What I am finding quite amusing with the arguments here, is that ribbon development it actually taking advantage of already existing infrastructure, whereas the other option would be the building of new roads and new infrastructure keeping new developments closer to towns and villages, while still having to pay for the upkeep of the existing road network.

markpb

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What I am finding quite amusing with the arguments here, is that ribbon development it actually taking advantage of already existing infrastructure, whereas the other option would be the building of new roads and new infrastructure keeping new developments closer to towns and villages, while still having to pay for the upkeep of the existing road network.

In that case, we disagree. I think that building a ribbon of new development along an NP or NS road degrades it and stops it from fulfilling its role. It slows traffic down, changes the maintenance requirements and makes it harder to upgrade in the future.

None of this is visible to people living along the road, it's just a piece of infrastructure that has been provided by the state.

ei.sdraob

Malcolm Melodic Pebble wrote: »

we are gradually transitioning from a period of cheap and plentiful energy towards a time of ever increasing energy costs and eventually fuel shortages.
.

Just like we where told we are transitioning to a period of ever rising property prices :rolleyes:

Pete_Cavan

Cú Giobach wrote: »

What I am finding quite amusing with the arguments here, is that ribbon development it actually taking advantage of already existing infrastructure, whereas the other option would be the building of new roads and new infrastructure keeping new developments closer to towns and villages, while still having to pay for the upkeep of the existing road network.

Ribbon development does not take advantage of already existing infrastructure, in the case of most of almost all our national routes they had become so littered with one-off houses that it was impossible to upgrade the existing infrastructure (due to the lack of space and the need to buy all houses along the road making it too expensive). This means we have to build completely new roads off-line, with all the COPing, planning issues, etc. that involves while still footing the bill for maintaining the "old road". Other roads, like national secondaries and regional routes, do not have traffic volumes to justify off-line new build and so remain poor quality winding roads with many entrances causing speed restrictions and safety issues.

Ribbon developments take advantage of already existing infrastructure is a good way of putting it, although not in the way you meant it.

murphaph

Cú Giobach wrote: »

People all over the island have their own private roads, in rural areas they are usually called "tracks" or "driveways", in many cases (myself included) they can be quite long, some serve a number of houses and are paid for by ourselves. Nobody is demanding roads be built up to their front door and all new road building (which we all have to pay to upkeep) is done in urban or what will become urban areas.
What I am finding quite amusing with the arguments here, is that ribbon development it actually taking advantage of already existing infrastructure, whereas the other option would be the building of new roads and new infrastructure keeping new developments closer to towns and villages, while still having to pay for the upkeep of the existing road network.

Ribbon development is completely inappropriate. The fact that you see it as some sort if positive is very telling.

Ribbon development on N and R roads is generally a bad call on safety grounds alone as it adds to vehicle turning movements on what are already busy roads. Indeed, the NRA will oppose planning permission for any dwellings that propose to use an N road for their access. The NRA had to go so far as to remove funding from Clare County Council because the county refused to stop issuing planning permissions for proposed developments fronting onto N roads.

Ribbon development brings with it (generally) no footpaths or other pedestrian facilities, so pedestrians accessing the neighbour or (if one can be found in walking distance) the shops will have to mix directly with vehicular traffic (on N roads and many R roads, at speeds of up to 100km/h).

Ribbon development is (to most objective third parties) not very attractive as it spreads the suburbanisation further and further into the countryside. In the process it takes people further and further from town and village centres, destroying these towns souls in the process as people tend to need a car anyway and if they have a car sure they may as well hit the nearest Tesco as shop in the local rural town.

Ribbon development is harder to service. It is MUCH easier and more efficient to build a small rural town network of sewage/telco/power lines clustered around an existing town than to go building these things under existing roads. Small, PLANNED communities directly adjacent to rural towns with their own small road and footpath network are safer for their inhabitants and arguably more pleasant that traffic whizzing by at 80 or 100km/h. The marginal cost associated with adding a bit of new road and footpath outside a house in such a development is minimal when an entire planned development is going ahead anyway.

Arguing in favour of ribbon development because it "uses existing infrastructure" is incredibly short sighted. Using this argument, where do you stop with the suburbanisation of the countryside? When every single boreen and R and N road is lined with housing?

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Just like we where told we are transitioning to a period of ever rising property prices :rolleyes:

Well €1.53 a litre petrol and continually rising & sometimes unstable oil prices says otherwise. Ireland's oil consumption has already dropped some 10% since 2006 (mostly caused by the building boom bubble bursting) those who haven't jumped ship are spending a much larger percentage of their incomes on fuel already.
If Chindia continues to grow and outbid the west for oil supplies it will mean less for us and less for people who have to drive 20+ miles to go shopping etc they will really get squeezed.

Rural Ireland will get quieter in the future as it becomes ever more expensive to live there (here) for those who don't need to live here.

PS oil was $70-80 this time last year now it's $110-125 a barrel.

Cú Giobach

murphaph wrote: »

Ribbon development is completely inappropriate. The fact that you see it as some sort if positive is very telling............

I didn't say it was positive. And I hate it.

murphaph

Cú Giobach wrote: »

I didn't say it was positive. And I hate it.

Apologies then. When I read this..

What I am finding quite amusing with the arguments here, is that ribbon development it actually taking advantage of already existing infrastructure, whereas the other option would be the building of new roads and new infrastructure keeping new developments closer to towns and villages, while still having to pay for the upkeep of the existing road network.

...I guess I just presumed you were arguing in favour of it (as it appears did at least 3 other posters )

Cú Giobach

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Ribbon developments take advantage of already existing infrastructure is a good way of putting it, although not in the way you meant it.

I think you will find I meant exactly what you think. It uses it and takes advantage of it.
I mention it is amusing that people are saying we should close roads and moaning when we use them, which was followed by a flurry of posts claiming I am for ribbon development.
Too much out of context quoting going on here, so I shall now bow out.

My stance on this I made quite clear from the start of the thread, planning desperately needs to be addressed and people have the right to live in the countryside if they so want, with priority given to local inhabitants.

ei.sdraob

Malcolm Melodic Pebble wrote: »

Well €1.53 a litre petrol and continually rising & sometimes unstable oil prices says otherwise. Ireland's oil consumption has already dropped some 10% since 2006 (mostly caused by the building boom bubble bursting) those who haven't jumped ship are spending a much larger percentage of their incomes on fuel already.
If Chindia continues to grow and outbid the west for oil supplies it will mean less for us and less for people who have to drive 20+ miles to go shopping etc they will really get squeezed.

Rural Ireland will get quieter in the future as it becomes ever more expensive to live there (here) for those who don't need to live here.

PS oil was $70-80 this time last year now it's $110-125 a barrel.

Erm 2/3rds of that petrol price are taxes, while on the other hand in India they subsidise petrol.

Strip out the taxes and petrol would cost circa 60 cent a litre, what it costs in US.

I suppose you where proclaiming peak oil in 2008 too, how did that end up in the end again :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Erm 2/3rds of that petrol price are taxes, while on the other hand in India they subsidise petrol.

Strip out the taxes and petrol would cost circa 60 cent a litre, what it costs in US.

I suppose you where proclaiming peak oil in 2008 too, how did that end up in the end again :rolleyes:

Oil production plateaued around about 2006 and has not really risen since, 2008 was a response to the supply constraints caused by the recent economic boom and made worse by the panic when investors fled the banking sector when it was realised the sub-prime mortgages were dud, they jumped into oil instead. This forced up the price so much it crashed the economy. It didn't take very long for the prices to recover though back up to $60 or so.

We nearly saw a rerun of that recently, but the speculators bailed out earlier this time. But the price has not crashed!

None of this changes the fact that oil will remain at a higher average price in the future and this is going to make living in remote rural housing difficult for people who work elsewhere.

dubhthach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

Erm 2/3rds of that petrol price are taxes, while on the other hand in India they subsidise petrol.

Strip out the taxes and petrol would cost circa 60 cent a litre, what it costs in US.

I suppose you where proclaiming peak oil in 2008 too, how did that end up in the end again :rolleyes:

Cut out the tax and the government will have to raise other taxes to cover it. Given that we are running a budgetary deficit of €17billion a year I very much doubt they will reduce tax on petrol. If anything I expect to see another 5-10c added come budget time.

ei.sdraob

dubhthach wrote: »

Cut out the tax and the government will have to raise other taxes to cover it. Given that we are running a budgetary deficit of €17billion a year I very much doubt they will reduce tax on petrol. If anything I expect to see another 5-10c added come budget time.

And they will shoot themselves and the economy in the foot wheel by doing so (therefore they will do it :P!)

I am off for a few week long drive in US in a month, its cheaper to fly across the Atlantic, rent a car and see most of the continent while enjoying good and cheap food and accommodation, than drive around Ireland or UK or France or rest of western Europe. More of my money leaving the country and EU, woohoo


@Malcolm Melodic Pebble keeps insisting that oil is running out hence the price is high, while ignoring that on the world stage speculators are running amock yet again despite falling demand and here in Ireland once you strip away all the taxes petrol is very much affordable.