75% of Connemara septic tanks will fail inspection?

MadsL

According to the Times today...

Protesters from Galway West, hurrahed on by former minister Éamon Ó Cuív, described the legislation to safeguard public health and minimise water pollution as “an injustice to rural people . . . an insult”. Apart from the emotional rhetoric, they suggested that three-quarters of all septic tanks in Connemara would not meet standards set by the Environmental Protection Agency. That is a startling figure. It points to a complete breakdown in proper planning for one-off housing. If the projected 75 per cent failure rate is not part of a scare campaign, inspections would cause problems not just for householders but for those who encouraged free-for-all planning.

So this is a catastrophic failure of the planning system that An Taisce and other environmental groups have been warning about for years and years. If anything this revelation vindicates An Taisce hugely for their long-standing position on one-off housing.

So Mr Ó Cuív, who exactly was asleep at the wheel? Given that you were Minister for the Gaeltacht and also Minister for Rural development, don't you bear some responsibility?

Whilst Ó Cuív is urging non-payment of the inspection charges, if this comes to pass there will be massive remediation and testing costs to sort this (pardon the pun) sh*t out - who should pay for this environmental cluster-f**k?

mikemac1

Pat Kenny show cover this only it was Mattie McGrath in South Tipp doing the talking

And it seems Cavan Co Council have been doing these inspections for several years and one quarter of septic tanks were not up to standard

That 75 per cent failure rate seems to be a very nice round figure and one that somebody made up. How did they arrive at that figure?

As for costs, well councils have staff sitting around doing nothing. Whole planning departments are not busy so may as well get the staff out inspecting.
The staff are being paid anyway.

Any extra cost here depends if people are going to be given grants.
People built these tanks and houses to standards and complied to planning permission. If the EPA are going to change the standards then people are suddenly going to find they need to spend thousands to upgrade.

If you met the councils standards when you built it and now the council tells you to spend thousands on a new tank and you don't have the money then what's going to happen? Is the council going to take you to court lol?

So there is going to be lobbying for grants

Oh and An Taisce are a shower of interfering busybodies who deserve to be ignored

MadsL

mikemac1 wrote: »

If the EPA are going to change the standards then people are suddenly going to find they need to spend thousands to upgrade.

Standards are based on install dates; for example -

4. Septic tanks installed on or after 1 June 1992 must comply with Part H of the. National Building Regulations.

So no-one is changing anything...

Oh and An Taisce are a shower of interfering busybodies who deserve to be ignored

A well-thought out response, ignore them even when they are right? Well done.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

If anything this revelation vindicates An Taisce hugely for their long-standing position on one-off housing.

Well, no, unless An Taisce's objection to one-off housing was that three-quarters of septic tanks wouldn't be compliant with regulations.

Private Joker

MadsL wrote: »

Standards are based on install dates; for example -
So no-one is changing anything...

Does this means pre planning houses are exempt?

Liam Byrne

Private Joker wrote: »

MadsL wrote: »

Standards are based on install dates; for example -
So no-one is changing anything...

Does this means pre planning houses are exempt?

That's exactly what I was wondering when I read that! What about houses from the 50s or 60s ?

murphaph

Private Joker wrote: »

Does this means pre planning houses are exempt?

One would hope not. I mean, one would hope that there exists some minimum standard for septic tanks for pre-(1963?) dwellings.

It's not like a draughty house. Sure, it costs extra to heat and that means more energy and this affects the environment, but it's in a different league to waste treatment issues, which can contaminate groundwater and make people really ill.

Ireland is beginning to reap an awful lot of what it has sown over the past 20 years now. Disastrously lax planning amongst that. Rural living is fine, in clustered settlements, hamlets and villages. Bungalow blitz is not fine and has scarred the landscape and is indirectly responsible for this mess too.

With small clustered settlements, small scale sewage treatment becomes viable and eliminates the need for septic tanks completely.

johngalway

murphaph wrote: »

Rural living is fine, in clustered settlements, hamlets and villages.

You will find a lot of people who actually live in rural areas will disagree with your above statement, myself included.

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no, unless An Taisce's objection to one-off housing was that three-quarters of septic tanks wouldn't be compliant with regulations.

An Taisce's policy on one-off housing was based on the fact that individual units

"are liable to do more damage to the landscape and groundwater (per unit built) than larger settlements. One-off housing generates septic-tank seepage, light pollution and disproportionate land-take, as well as, in many cases, aesthetic blight."

More details at http://www.antaisce.org/builtenvironment/Policies/PoliciesonRuralBuiltEnvironment.aspx

So, in my view this opinion that 75% will fail inspection vindicates An Taisce's one-off policy all these years.

You can read their submission to the EPA here - http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/StakeholderConsultation/FileDownLoad,28571,en.pdf

The pressure on groundwater is described as widespread in the National Summary Characterisation
Report (prepared under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), with septic tanks and other OSWTSs
considered to be one of the major sources of contamination of drinking water supplies (National
Rural Water Monitoring Committee, 2003). 29% of groundwaters were found to contain faecal
contamination between 2004 and 2006 (EPA, 2006).

Incidentally; 100 euros for the inspection is cheap, look at costs in the States;

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

Bernalillo County homeowners with old septic systems would have to get them evaluated to ensure they aren’t polluting groundwater, under a proposal headed before county commissioners.
The evaluations are expected to cost about $300 to $400. If the septic system isn’t working properly, the homeowners would also have to pay for upgrades to bring it up to current standards.

Pete_Cavan

MadsL wrote: »

So Mr Ó Cuív, who exactly was asleep at the wheel?

I posted this a couple of months ago, and the answer wont surprise you.

Liam Byrne

MadsL wrote: »

oscarBravo wrote: »

Well, no, unless An Taisce's objection to one-off housing was that three-quarters of septic tanks wouldn't be compliant with regulations.

An Taisce's policy on one-off housing was based on the fact that individual units

"are liable to do more damage to the landscape and groundwater (per unit built) than larger settlements. One-off housing generates septic-tank seepage, light pollution and disproportionate land-take, as well as, in many cases, aesthetic blight."

More details at http://www.antaisce.org/builtenvironment/Policies/PoliciesonRuralBuiltEnvironment.aspx

So, in my view this opinion that 75% will fail inspection vindicates An Taisce's one-off policy all these years.

You can read their submission to the EPA here - http://www.environ.ie/en/Environment/Water/WaterServices/StakeholderConsultation/FileDownLoad,28571,en.pdf

The pressure on groundwater is described as widespread in the National Summary Characterisation
Report (prepared under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), with septic tanks and other OSWTSs
considered to be one of the major sources of contamination of drinking water supplies (National
Rural Water Monitoring Committee, 2003). 29% of groundwaters were found to contain faecal
contamination between 2004 and 2006 (EPA, 2006).

Incidentally; 100 euros for the inspection is cheap, look at costs in the States;

http://www.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx

Bernalillo County homeowners with old septic systems would have to get them evaluated to ensure they aren’t polluting groundwater, under a proposal headed before county commissioners.
The evaluations are expected to cost about $300 to $400. If the septic system isn’t working properly, the homeowners would also have to pay for upgrades to bring it up to current standards.

How big is that county, though ? Travel expense might justify the difference.

If a single inspector did the whole country I'd agree with you about the €400, but we need to compare like with like.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

So, in my view this opinion that 75% will fail inspection vindicates An Taisce's one-off policy all these years.

What percentage would constitute a failure to vindicate their policy?

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

What percentage would constitute a failure to vindicate their policy?

Whatever percentage would have an insignificant contribution to groundwater pollution rates. Want to talk about the number of angels on the head of a pin too?

My point is that An Taisce have been warning for years that rampant permissions for one-offs has an effect on the levels of pollution in the groundwater and now here is this rural pressure group, wanting to be 'left alone', whilst admitting that 75% of the tanks will fail inspection. To my mind that strengthens the case for inspection, and strengthens AT's case that one-off's cause groundwater pollution.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

My point is that An Taisce have been warning for years that rampant permissions for one-offs has an effect on the levels of pollution in the groundwater and now here is this rural pressure group, wanting to be 'left alone', whilst admitting that 75% of the tanks will fail inspection.

They're not "admitting" that, they're "guessing" it.

To my mind that strengthens the case for inspection, and strengthens AT's case that one-off's cause groundwater pollution.

I don't think the case for inspection needs any strengthening, and one-offs don't cause pollution; faulty septic tanks cause pollution.

MadsL

They're not "admitting" that, they're "guessing" it.

Ok, then change my sentence to "guessing"..

"wanting to be 'left alone', whilst guessing that 75% of the tanks will fail inspection."

Doesn't make any better argument to do nothing about failing tanks does it?

faulty septic tanks cause pollution.

A concentration of properly working septic tanks can also exhaust the perc area and cause pollution. So, an excess of one-offs can cause pollution in a specific water drainage area.



For the record I'm just about to buy a property in a community development that has an aerobic digester group scheme, for which as part of a $240 a month services charge for water, trash, and communal area maintenance and buildings insurance, for that I get piece of mind that the well I'll be drinking from has not been polluted by my neighbours. I also will pay 0.08c per gallon over my allowance.

This is not uncommon in the US outside of the city sewerage schemes. People expect to pay for water & sewage and expect that it is done right as they rely on wells for drinking water.

The problem as I see it in Ireland is the selfish attitude of "why should I pay" rather than the view of being responsible not just for yourself but those around you. For many, if they had properly maintained the tanks in the first place they wouldn't be anticipating failing inspections now...but the price of de-sludging was probably put towards a new Pajero (shure it'll be grand)

MadsL

How big is that county, though ? Travel expense might justify the difference.

If a single inspector did the whole country I'd agree with you about the €400, but we need to compare like with like.

Bernalillo County is 1,169 square miles - smaller than Galway (2,373.8 sq mi) - about the size of Co. Limerick.

Liam Byrne

MadsL wrote: »

Bernalillo County is 1,169 square miles - smaller than Galway (2,373.8 sq mi) - about the size of Co. Limerick.

Fair enough - asked and answered. Comprehensively.

oscarBravo

MadsL wrote: »

Doesn't make any better argument to do nothing about failing tanks does it?

No. I'm not arguing against septic tank inspections; I'm arguing against the idea that anything is proved by a lobby group making up numbers.

A concentration of properly working septic tanks can also exhaust the perc area and cause pollution. So, an excess of one-offs can cause pollution in a specific water drainage area.

That's not an argument against one-off housing; it's an argument against allowing more than a given density of septic tanks in a given drainage area.

Sponge Bob

The really big problem is that there is nowhere to process the sludge if they suddenly order 300,000 odd non compliant septic tanks to be desludged in 2012...post inspection....as a prudent and interim solution...and possibly every 6-12 months thereafter.

The good news is that the Urban Waste Water directive is not in force until 2015 so there is no need to worry if it issues through a sewer of urban origin straight into the ocean. We can't send it to Dublin or Galway cities as their sewage processing systems ...partly paid for by country peoples taxes... are already operating over design capacity, or can we????

MadsL

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's not an argument against one-off housing; it's an argument against allowing more than a given density of septic tanks in a given drainage area.

Exactly, now how do you control that? By limiting one-off housing...or trying to encourage rural communities rather than ribbon development so that group sewage schemes are cost effective.

Yet An Taisce were decried as anti-christs when they opposed further grants of permission in areas where ribbon development was rampant.

Ste.phen

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We can't send it to Dublin or Galway cities as their sewage processing systems ...partly paid for by country peoples taxes... are already operating over design capacity, or can we????

I don't have the numbers to hand, but isn't there a net transfer of tax revenue from Dublin and Cork (primarily) to the other counties? (primarily North West) - it's a bit disingenuous to say 'country peoples' taxes' paid for Dublin's sewage systems isn't it?

unit 1

Look folks this being Ireland we all know the real reason for the objections to these proposals.
Many, (anecdoteadly I would say most ) people do not construct their septic tanks in accordance with their planning permission proposals, and are now afraid of being found out, and having to shell out for any remedial works.

Of course they will cry "sure we have no money" but this defence is bogus because they surely must have had the money (ie budgeted ) when they origionally proposed to do their building work, unless they origionally proposed to construct dwellings with substandard systems.

Like I said this is Ireland, so build your house, scrimp on your obligation to install a proper treatment system (sure you wont get caught ), save yourself some cash, probably spend it on god knows what, and when the sh1t hits the fan plead poverty.
Of course the bould Mattie will bat for us, because of the governments arrogance in not listening to the plain people ( who told him to support ff ), and their anti rural stance, so everything will be ok wont it.

MadsL

people do not construct their septic tanks in accordance with their planning permission proposals, and are now afraid of being found out, and having to shell out for any remedial works.

Nail. Head.

Wait for the lobbying by rural TDs for an aul' grant.

Liam Byrne

unit 1 wrote: »

Look folks this being Ireland we all know the real reason for the objections to these proposals.
Many, (anecdoteadly I would say most ) people do not construct their septic tanks in accordance with their planning permission proposals

Link/proof, or are you just making stuff up to suit your argument ?

"Anecdotally" there were no pollution issues with the local private water scheme here, despite lots of septic tanks - so can I now claim that there must be none polluting countrywide ? Would you accept that as a basis for the argument, or would you shout it down because it's an anecdote that doesn't support your bias ?

unit 1

I dont have a bias, and indeed many existing septic tanks may even be more than asequate.
My point is that irish people have a habit of "not doing what it says on the tin", and it is the fear of being found out and having to pay for the consequences that terrifies them (maybe if I was a good catholic I would call it guilt:D) . Here is a list of the common excuses you can expect to hear from people to justify their own inadequate installations.

Shure nobody puts in one of those new fangled yokes. (too dear)

The council did'nt tell me to put in one of those yokes. (you'll never get caught)

My planning permission did'nt say I needed that kind. (even though my engineer did, but then only I know that)

I've never had to empty it because it's working fine. (never looked at it)

People in towns dont have to pay. (yes they do when they buy their house)

Shure it's fine, is'nt there great soakage around here. (straight into the water table)

Why there's lots of tanks going into that stream. (there is'nt great soakage around here)

Mattie Mc Grath says it's wrong :eek:

and on and on.

Liam Byrne

unit 1 wrote: »

I dont have a bias, and indeed many existing septic tanks may even be more than asequate.
My point is that irish people have a habit of "not doing what it says on the tin", and it is the fear of being found out and having to pay for the consequences that terrifies them (maybe if I was a good catholic I would call it guilt:D) . Here is a list of the common excuses you can expect to hear from people to justify their own inadequate installations.

Shure nobody puts in one of those new fangled yokes. (too dear)

The council did'nt tell me to put in one of those yokes. (you'll never get caught)

My planning permission did'nt say I needed that kind. (even though my engineer did, but then only I know that)

I've never had to empty it because it's working fine. (never looked at it)

People in towns dont have to pay. (yes they do when they buy their house)

Shure it's fine, is'nt there great soakage around here. (straight into the water table)

Why there's lots of tanks going into that stream. (there is'nt great soakage around here)

Mattie Mc Grath says it's wrong :eek:

and on and on.

Some Irish people might be like that.

If you said something like that about any other nationality, it would be a racist comment.

The statement is true about a significant number, and I have witnessed the "ah sure it'll do fine" attitude among some myself and had to tell people to cop on and do things right.

So I'll point out again that your "anecdotal" evidence is no more valid than mine, and I have had no issues whatsoever with neighbours' septic tanks polluting.

cavedave

unit 1 probably a fair few people will truthfully say

"The builder, now bust, said he'd put in one to spec but the inspector says it isn't."

In a Thornton hall like situation where substandard work was done. The water in the area is being polluted. The builder does not have the money to fix the septic tank. The home owner does not have the money to fix the tank.

What is going to happen then?

MadsL

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I have had no issues whatsoever with neighbours' septic tanks polluting.

To your knowledge. Are you on a well, group scheme or mains water?

Liam Byrne

It was a local self-funded group scheme for years because the council wouldn't supply one; they eventually took it over.

And no, it's not "to my knowledge" that it wasn't polluted - it's a fact. Please don't contradict things you know nothing about.

mikemac1

unit 1 wrote: »

People in towns dont have to pay. (yes they do when they buy their house)

True, the developer pays the council and then passes on the cost to the house buyer

Do people in towns pay for ongoing maintenance?

If the council need to dig a trench, get a fitter to service pumps or send around men who spend most of the day leaning on shovels to check the pipes do people in the affected estate or street pay extra?

Or would it come from council funds that people in rural areas are equally paying into?

MadsL

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And no, it's not "to my knowledge" that it wasn't polluted - it's a fact. Please don't contradict things you know nothing about.

How often is your water tested? I was asking a question not contradicting anyone...perhaps a bit more information in your post would have helped - it came across like 'well, we've never had a problem' meaning we have never looked for one.

murphaph

Sponge Bob wrote: »

We can't send it to Dublin or Galway cities as their sewage processing systems ...partly paid for by country peoples taxes...

Absolutely nothing in Dublin is paid for by country people's taxes Bob. You should know that Dublin is a net exporter of tax revenue. Dublin (and other urban centres) subsidises rural areas, not the other way around.

unit 1

cavedave wrote: »

unit 1 probably a fair few people will truthfully say

"The builder, now bust, said he'd put in one to spec but the inspector says it isn't."

In a Thornton hall like situation where substandard work was done. The water in the area is being polluted. The builder does not have the money to fix the septic tank. The home owner does not have the money to fix the tank.

What is going to happen then?

Another one I forgot to add to my list.

If I were building a house then I would employ an engineer/surveyor with indemnity insurance to oversee my "builder", and expect him/her to carry the can if they fall down on the job. (nobody ever seems to ask people why they don't hire their own independant advice when building, really, would you trust a builder, I know I would'nt, and I also know that even so called engineers are far from perfect)

Don't forget this being Ireland most people will cut corners if they think they can get away with it, and blamb the guy who's gone bust if the sh1t hits the fan in order to avoid the cost of remedial works.

I suppose we could call it this way, most people in Ireland will lie if it will help them avoid the moral hazard of paying for their own mistakes, and many tds will give succour to these people to ingratiate themselves with the electorate due to the nature of irish politics. This is exactly what is happening here and many people, even those with money are terrified of this and could not care less about water quality or pollutint their neighbours land/water.

Irish people are very reluctant to pay for anything that a td tells them they might get for free, this being the way that politics and "local issues" work in this country, glammed up as a rural/urban divide to keep the ball rolling.

Liam Byrne

MadsL wrote: »

[
it came across like 'well, we've never had a problem' meaning we have never looked for one.

Never having a problem means what it says.

I'm not sure of specifics from before the council decided to switch to their supply but there were zero issues or sickness or smells or anything, in addition to fairly regular checking.

The only recurring issue with the scheme was too much lime which affected appliances and so it eventually had to go.

cavedave

unit 1 I still dont see what is going to happen

Here is a story I was told this weekend

A man asked for planning permission for a house in a bog. The house is on a little high bit of decent land. the houses septic tank is in the bog.
A septic tank in a bog cannot really clean the poo properly as there is too much water to soil to let the bacteria eat the poo before it gets into the water*.
Now imagine the inspector comes along ans says "you cant have a spetic tank in a bog and meet requirements."

Who is to blame (and to what extent) and who will end up paying?
1. The man who owns the house.
2. The man who built the house
3. The engineer/surveyor who inspected the house and says it was sound
4. the planning authority who approved a septic tank to be built in a bog

1,2,3 and 4 are now near bankrupt btw

*this may be false, if so pleace correct me. Can you have a septic tank safely in a bog?

Victor

johngalway wrote: »

You will find a lot of people who actually live in rural areas will disagree with your above statement, myself included.

Could I ask what you mean by this?

Vita nova

Ste.phen wrote: »

I don't have the numbers to hand, but isn't there a net transfer of tax revenue from Dublin and Cork (primarily) to the other counties? (primarily North West) - it's a bit disingenuous to say 'country peoples' taxes' paid for Dublin's sewage systems isn't it?

murphaph wrote: »

Absolutely nothing in Dublin is paid for by country people's taxes Bob. You should know that Dublin is a net exporter of tax revenue. Dublin (and other urban centres) subsidises rural areas, not the other way around.

I think you're missing the point and Sponge-Bob's tongue-in-cheek humour; the smiley should have been a clue.

Of course there's a net transfer of taxes from large urban to rural and peripheral areas; that's the case for most countries.
However, in the particular case of sewerage, people in rural dwellings pay taxes which provide sewage services to urban dwellers but get none themselves. They get higher per capita services in other areas but that's not the point here.

Murphaph, Dublin is not a separate country, therefore the transfer of tax revenues from it to other parts of the country is not an "export" -in any sense.

Btw, I'm an urban dweller and fully support the enforcement of EPA minimum sewerage standards.

Sierra Oscar

I am in the process of installing an entire new treatment system in my own place after the drain field started to fail on my current system. The front of my garden where the old field is was starting to turn into a swamp so I decided myself that something had to be done. The old system is around twenty five years old at this stage and they often only have a certain lifespan. I can guarantee you that many of the septic treatment systems installed in the 70's and 80's will have difficulty passing the inspections. Many of those tanks installed back then were done so without any actual planning permission so one does wonder if people will now have to start applying for retention - which they are not likely to get if the system is any bit dodgy.

My first quote I got for a new fully functioning treatment system was €7,000 which included all the works. Managed to get a second quote of around €4,000 - naturally pricing will vary case by case, but getting treatment system problems sorted out is not cheap.

cavedave

The total cost will roughly be

Number of houses * proportion that fail * cost.

With Sierra Oscars figure of 4000 for a new septic tank
And figures ranging from 25% to 75% of houses expected to fail
'Census 2006 data indicates that more than 440,000 houses in Ireland have septic tanks'


So that means the cost could reasonably be 440 000 * .25 * 4 000 = 440 000 000

With I have indicated above a fight about who should pay for shoddy work quite likely. 440 million is a lot of money. pessimistic figures would make it a lot more money 440000 * .75 * 7000 = 2310000000

murphaph

Vita nova wrote: »

Of course there's a net transfer of taxes from large urban to rural and peripheral areas; that's the case for most countries.
However, in the particular case of sewerage, people in rural dwellings pay taxes which provide sewage services to urban dwellers but get none themselves. They get higher per capita services in other areas but that's not the point here.

Sure that applies to anyone that doesn't use a particular service. I pay taxes for St Lukes but I sure as fcuk hope I never need their services etc.

Vita nova wrote: »

Murphaph, Dublin is not a separate country, therefore the transfer of tax revenues from it to other parts of the country is not an "export" -in any sense

Come off it with the pedantry. It's quite clear what I meant.

johngalway

murphaph wrote: »

Rural living is fine, in clustered settlements, hamlets and villages.

Victor wrote: »

Could I ask what you mean by this?

Hi Victor,

I've included murphaphs comment when I commented upon.

What I am saying is that people who live in rural areas - and I mean residents, not tourists/holiday home owners - will resent in the extreme being told they must live within the boundaries of a village, hamlet, whatever rather than apply to build a home on land they own.

Now I do not have 75 verified links to 23 articles by 7 nobel winning h-expurts so....

What I do have is 33 years experience of living in a rural village, 17 years of owning my own land outside of the boundaries of that village, and a lifetime of watching local residents struggle to gain planning permission for a family home.

So why did I post at all?

Because if a few, if you'll excuse the pun, piddling protests regarding septic tanks gain notice, then stand well back if the above quoted notion is being thought of brought into the planning process. Forcing rural people to live in villages won't work, guaranteed. Personally I find such ideas offensive.

Law works well, until it becomes unfair and discriminatory then people disregard it and it will fail.

murphaph

johngalway wrote: »

Hi Victor,

I've included murphaphs comment when I commented upon.

What I am saying is that people who live in rural areas - and I mean residents, not tourists/holiday home owners - will resent in the extreme being told they must live within the boundaries of a village, hamlet, whatever rather than apply to build a home on land they own.

Now I do not have 75 verified links to 23 articles by 7 nobel winning h-expurts so....

What I do have is 33 years experience of living in a rural village, 17 years of owning my own land outside of the boundaries of that village, and a lifetime of watching local residents struggle to gain planning permission for a family home.

So why did I post at all?

Because if a few, if you'll excuse the pun, piddling protests regarding septic tanks gain notice, then stand well back if the above quoted notion is being thought of brought into the planning process. Forcing rural people to live in villages won't work, guaranteed. Personally I find such ideas offensive.

Law works well, until it becomes unfair and discriminatory then people disregard it and it will fail.

Should planning law allow me to build and open a shopping centre next door to your house?

Vita nova

murphaph wrote: »

Sure that applies to anyone that doesn't use a particular service. I pay taxes for St Lukes but I sure as fcuk hope I never need their services etc.

That comparison fails utterly. You pay for medical/fire/police services so that they are there if you and your family need them - a bit like insurance.

Come off it with the pedantry. It's quite clear what I meant.

I don't consider it pedantry; maybe you should choose your words more wisely in future.

johngalway

murphaph wrote: »

Should planning law allow me to build and open a shopping centre next door to your house?

Did you actually read my post or did you just have that floating around in your head and felt the need to post it?

Of course not, don't be stupid. I never suggested such a thing.

murphaph

Vita nova wrote: »

That comparison fails utterly. You pay for medical/fire/police services so that they are there if you and your family need them - a bit like insurance.

Fine, I pay for the wages of women's studies lecturers through taxation. I can safely say I will NEVER need their services. There are plenty of examples of taxpayers paying for services they will never need/want.

Vita nova wrote: »

I don't consider it pedantry; maybe you should choose your words more wisely in future.

Whatever.

murphaph

johngalway wrote: »

Of course not, don't be stupid. I never suggested such a thing.

Why not? If I buy some land adjacent to your home and want to build a shopping centre on it, why should planning law stop me?

Pete_Cavan

johngalway wrote: »

Hi Victor,

I've included murphaphs comment when I commented upon.

What I am saying is that people who live in rural areas - and I mean residents, not tourists/holiday home owners - will resent in the extreme being told they must live within the boundaries of a village, hamlet, whatever rather than apply to build a home on land they own.

Now I do not have 75 verified links to 23 articles by 7 nobel winning h-expurts so....

What I do have is 33 years experience of living in a rural village, 17 years of owning my own land outside of the boundaries of that village, and a lifetime of watching local residents struggle to gain planning permission for a family home.

So why did I post at all?

Because if a few, if you'll excuse the pun, piddling protests regarding septic tanks gain notice, then stand well back if the above quoted notion is being thought of brought into the planning process. Forcing rural people to live in villages won't work, guaranteed. Personally I find such ideas offensive.

Law works well, until it becomes unfair and discriminatory then people disregard it and it will fail.

But it is not some "piddling protests regarding septic tanks", as usual people here trying to trivialise an issue because it suits your argument, when in reality it is far from trivial. The need for inspections of septic tanks comes about from EU Council Directive 75/442/EEC (originally introduced in 1975!). The European Court of Justice has since handed down a judgement in the case Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 29 October 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Ireland

1. Declares that, by failing to adopt, save in County Cavan, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Articles 4 and 8 of Council Directive 75/442/EEC of 15 July 1975 on waste, as amended by Council Directive 91/156/EEC of 18 March 1991, as regards domestic waste waters disposed of in the countryside through septic tanks and other individual waste water treatment systems, Ireland has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;
2. Orders Ireland to pay three quarters of the costs of the Commission of the European Communities and to bear its own costs;
3. Orders the Commission of the European Communities to bear one quarter of its own costs.

We have ignored this issue so long now that the European Commission in May 2011 referred the issue back to the Court of Justice and requested the imposition of a lump sum fine of €2.7 million and a daily penalty payment of €26,173 for as long as the infringements persist.

Now that the government plans to do something about it we have all these people up in arms with all this rethoric about it being "unfair and discriminatory". Is it fair that the rest of the country should pick up the tab? What exactly is "unfair and discriminatory" about forcing people to maintain their septic tanks (because we all know they cant be trusted to do so themselves)?

As for planning policy promoting clustered settlements, that is a different issue, but I will say that land as a factor of production is fixed in supply so we should use it as efficiently as possible, but no doubt you find that offensive as well.

johngalway

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

But it is not some "piddling protests regarding septic tanks", as usual people here trying to trivialise an issue because it suits your argument, when in reality it is far from trivial.

I purposely made little comment on the septic tank issue. You have no clue as to my thoughts on the subject as I was only addressing one comment from one post.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

As for planning policy promoting clustered settlements, that is a different issue, but I will say that land as a factor of production is fixed in supply so we should use it as efficiently as possible, but no doubt you find that offensive as well.

If an individual can afford to build a reasonable home on a piece of land they own themselves then they should be allowed to do so. Just because that impinges on your personal hobby horse doesn't make it a crime.

johngalway

murphaph wrote: »

Why not? If I buy some land adjacent to your home and want to build a shopping centre on it, why should planning law stop me?

You tell me murphaph, I made no ridiculous supermarket comment.

murphaph

johngalway wrote: »

If an individual can afford to build a reasonable home on a piece of land they own themselves then they should be allowed to do so.

If an individual can afford to build a reasonable home shopping centre on a piece of land they own themselves then they should be allowed to do so.

What's the difference? Your main thrust is that if one owns land, they should be more or less left alone to do what they want with it, is it not?

Liam Byrne

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Now that the government plans to do something about it we have all these people up in arms with all this rethoric about it being "unfair and discriminatory".

Yup. Sewerage is provided for city-dwellers. Rural dwellers have paid huge amounts to provide their own.

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Is it fair that the rest of the country should pick up the tab? What exactly is "unfair and discriminatory" about forcing people to maintain their septic tanks (because we all know they cant be trusted to do so themselves)?

Is it fair that those who maintain and check theirs should "pick up the tab" because of those who don't ?

Is it fair that dodgy city & town sewerage systems are also causing e-coli and boil notices, but there's no extra charge to the urbanites ?

As for the bit that I bolded.......insulting and untrue; lazy argumentative generalisations like that are well out of order.