what's so bad about one off housing?

Cody Pomeray

Can someone explain to me what is so bad about one-off housing (a single, house on a small piece of its own land, in a rural area)?

A lot of Irish people live in one off houses. I think they're fooking fantastic. It might upset tourist's views, but they allow residents - you know, the people who actually live in areas of beauty - to live on or close to the land, as we have done for centuries.

We have always been a people of one off houses, including when our population was far greater and we let our animals sh1t in rivers and there was no REPS man telling you to kep everything tidy.

Is there nothing to be said for one off houses?

I get the feeling a lot of the people against them are city people who dont know any better. they go down to kerry or galway once a year and say 'great place, but we have to stop building these one off houses'...

Banjo String

Personally I'm all for them, but I'm a bit biased as I was reared in a one off, nearest neighbour was a half mile away or so. Always loved the privacy we have (folks still live there)

I can understand councils and govts being upset though as they probably aren't cost saving when it comes to providing them with services.

Connecting to the grid /water man's etc.

Built up areas abs hosting estates are more cost effective I'd imagine. Country folk don't tend to like being hemmed in though.

Elbaston

Im not so knowledgeable on this subject, however by chance, in connection with the question I was asking about Germany's economy, it seems that they go all in for one off houseing.
They buy a plot, hire their own local architect and labour and buy the materials locally.
That way they dont get a housing bubble with developments of 100s of houses lying empty.

I don't live in, (have never lived in), or know anybody to who lives in a one off house and have no 'side' on this.

Poor Uncle Tom

Destroy natural habitats to build unnatural habitation!

Micky Dolenz

Nothing bad about them and there are loads around. It is possible to get PP for them particularly if the proposed residents are from the area.

UCDVet

I've lived in both....one-off housing is vastly superior in every way, except cost - IMHO.

Mike 1972

Think the problem comes from the term being something of a misnomor

Theyre hardly "one off" if every other ©unt in the county wants one.

Cody Pomeray

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Destroy natural habitats to build unnatural habitation!

we've been "destroying natural habitats" since the year dot.

What if people are willing to put up with a limited amount of destruction, to preserve quality of life?

People who live in one off houses have an actual stake in the environment. They live on top of the water they drink. They drive over the land their food comes from. They see their dinners while their dinner is still alive in the fields. They live in nature. They are themselves part of the habitat.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

people from built up areas like to drive by for a gawk and hate the idea of other people actually being able to enjoy their own property

Wibbs

I've little problem with one off housing, however the design for many leaves a lot to be desired. Fine if funds are tight, but look at the concrete abortions that sprung up at the height of the celtic tiger and no expense spared. The vast majority of which had about as good design, never mind good taste of a gypsy wedding.

Poor Uncle Tom

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

we've been "destroying natural habitats" since the year dot.

Yes, does that make it right?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

What if people are willing to put up with a limited amount of destruction, to preserve quality of life?

Where do you draw the line? When you build your house?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

People who live in one off houses have an actual stake in the environment. They live on top of the water they drink.

They live on top of the water a hell of a lot of people drink.

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

They drive over the land their food comes from. They see their dinners while their dinner is still alive in the fields. They live in nature. They are themselves part of the habitat.

So, who do you stop from living like this as everyone clearly can't?

I live in a one-off, built it myself, but I do see the point that too many in one area can turn a rural area into a semi-rural area and when they're built on the outskirts of a town they effectively turn the area into a suburb.

The real problem I see is the fact that living in one for the vast majority involves a lifestyle that will be unsustainable in the future due to the additional resources needed to live relative to someone living in a city.

For starters there is the size of the property,(assuming same levels of insulation & similar heating systems) heating bills are generally higher due to the larger area that needs heating.

The need to drive everywhere, in a remote rural house you could become isolated but in the city almost everything is within walking distance.

Services are much cheaper & easier to provide in a city than to lots of individual houses scattered over a wide area.

and the list goes on.

I suspect that the current generation will be the last to build one-offs in remote rural areas, one-offs in an urban setting will continue to be built whenever possible.

PhlegmyMoses

Wibbs wrote: »

I've little problem with one off housing, however the design for many leaves a lot to be desired. Fine if funds are tight, but look at the concrete abortions that sprung up at the height of the celtic tiger and no expense spared. The vast majority of which had about as good design, never mind good taste of a gypsy wedding.

This is many people's problem with it. I was discussing it with my uncle a while back, who's an architect, and he was saying that there doesn't seem to be any opposition to the traditional housing styles in the countryside, it's the ostentatious McMansions with garish designs that cause the problem for many.

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Think the problem comes from the term being something of a misnomor

Theyre hardly "one off" if every other ©unt in the county wants one.

I think the distinction is that a one-off is individually built, rather than an estate of them being built.

Five one-offs could be built along a road by five different builders for five different people.

Micky Dolenz

Wibbs wrote: »

I've little problem with one off housing, however the design for many leaves a lot to be desired. Fine if funds are tight, but look at the concrete abortions that sprung up at the height of the celtic tiger and no expense spared. The vast majority of which had about as good design, never mind good taste of a gypsy wedding.

Another thing people forgot was how expensive it would be to maintain and pay for services, heating, power etc. coupled that with big mortgages and some people were in bother quickly.

MadsL

Mega thread here
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056471863

This however paints a picture. A map of all the new addresses 2005-2007, it has all the planning and intensification of services as if a sawn off shotgun loaded with rice was used to determine the locations.

http://oneoffireland.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/one-off.jpg

V_Moth

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Can someone explain to me what is so bad about one-off housing (a single, house on a small piece of its own land, in a rural area)?

Some good counter-arguments mentioned already. Just to add:

-Very difficult to effectively police areas with one-off housing.
-Isolation for elderly people - shops/pharmacies/hospitals are usually some distance away and may not be accessible in adverse weather.
-Very difficult to provide efficient public transport
-Higher costs for everything from electricity to heating to road maintenance, which are (effectively) subsidised by city residents.
-Privatising the landscape.
-Few local jobs which leads to longer commutes into towns/cities.
-Paving over the landscape, which leads to more water running off into rivers causing more flooding [i.e. not adsorbed by the soil].
-Leading cause of Jackie Healy-Rae.

Mike 1972

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Five one-offs could be built along a road by five different builders for five different people.

And who pays for provision of services if indeed these units recieve proper services at all as opposed to say wells and septic tanks ?

Cody Pomeray

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

Yes, does that make it right?

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

we've been "destroying natural habitats" since the year dot.

My point is that despite centuries and centuries of one off houses (and before the comparatively sensible environmental and building regs we apply to one off houses today), areas of natural beauty are still beautiful, cattle still trample pristine green leys (probably more green, more fertile, and more pristine than ever), the birds still sing on the boughs, and our woodlands are still stuffed with hedgehogs, badgers, and obscure beetles.

I am not denying that a certain level of destruction is inevitable. But what if people simply value quality of life more than a very high threshold of natural conservation?

Where do you draw the line? When you build your house?

I think the line is drawn when quality of life for rural dwellers diminishes beyond a certain threshold and natural habitats are undermined below a certain threshold (those markers may, in fact, be of the same threshold).

So, who do you stop from living like this as everyone clearly can't?

I would give preference to those who are (i) local to the area, (ii) who intend to reside there permanently and not use it as a holiday home and (iii) whose homes remain reasonably true to the traditional design of homes in those areas. And as I said, building should only proceed to the extent that the locals' quality of life is not seriously undermined, and their local habitat is not seriously undermined either.

All I am suggesting is that we move away from this fixation, that exists in some quarters, which is sweepingly and nearly universally opposed to one off houses.

Mike 1972

Mike 1972 wrote: »

And who pays for provision of services if indeed these units recieve proper services at all as opposed to say wells and septic tanks ?

The householders have to pay to be connected to the water, electric & phone. The maintenance costs are included in the standing charges divided up equally between all (rural) consumers, regardless of low long the cables are to your house.

All builders (within the past 10 years) had to pay a development levy of between 4-15k to the local council (kerching!!) to support the local provision of services.

With all that money rolling in, it's easy to see why planning permission was so easy to get.

V_Moth

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I would give preference to those who are (i) local to the area, (ii) who intend to reside there permanently and not use it as a holiday home and (iii) whose homes remain reasonably true to the traditional design of homes in those areas. And as I said, building should only proceed to the extent that the locals' quality of life is not seriously undermined, and their local habitat is not seriously undermined either.

All I am suggesting is that we move away from this fixation, that exists in some quarters, which is sweepingly and nearly universally opposed to one off houses.

What is the traditional design? A Crannóg or ring-fort?

What is really odd in Ireland in comparison to a lot of other European countries is that you can drive from Mizen Head to Donegal and there is no recognisable change in architecture. There are no regional variations - just same bog-standard 60's bungalow with pebble dash.

MadsL

V_Moth wrote: »

What is the traditional design? A Crannóg or ring-fort?

What is really odd in Ireland in comparison to a lot of other European countries is that you can drive from Mizen Head to Donegal and there is no recognisable change in architecture. There are no regional variations - just same bog-standard 60's bungalow with pebble dash.

That bungalow blight from that cookie-cutter book of plans ruined Ireland imho.
You see amazing stone cut houses in ruins next to fugly breeze block bungalows.

V_Moth

V_Moth wrote: »

What is the traditional design? A Crannóg or ring-fort?

What is really odd in Ireland in comparison to a lot of other European countries is that you can drive from Mizen Head to Donegal and there is no recognisable change in architecture. There are no regional variations - just same bog-standard 60's bungalow with pebble dash.

Bungalow blitz, the book that shaped the Irish countryside.

Cody Pomeray

V_Moth wrote: »

What is the traditional design? A Crannóg or ring-fort?

Local materials, where possible.

MadsL

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Local materials, where possible.

Turf?

Poor Uncle Tom

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I would give preference to those who are (i) local to the area, (ii) who intend to reside there permanently and not use it as a holiday home and (iii) whose homes remain reasonably true to the traditional design of homes in those areas. And as I said, building should only proceed to the extent that the locals' quality of life is not seriously undermined, and their local habitat is not seriously undermined either.

You have just described the rural housing policy in most every county development plan that currently exists in Ireland. So what you seem to be asking for, already exists.

V_Moth wrote: »

What is the traditional design? A Crannóg or ring-fort?

What is really odd in Ireland in comparison to a lot of other European countries is that you can drive from Mizen Head to Donegal and there is no recognisable change in architecture. There are no regional variations - just same bog-standard 60's bungalow with pebble dash.

Very good question.....

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056405596

Cody Pomeray

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

You have just described the rural housing policy in most every county development plan that currently exists in Ireland. So what you seem to be asking for, already exists.

Have you not read the OP?

I'm not asking the councils to change anything.

I'm asking why people have a problem with the current situation with permission being given for one off houses.

Poor Uncle Tom

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Have you not read the OP?

I'm not asking the councils to change anything.

I'm asking why people have a problem with the current situation with permission being given for one off houses.

Okay, thanks for the clarity.