House Name

d1234

Hi I live in the countryside and was thinking of putting a name on our house. The house is not part of an estate. What is the standard procedure for putting a name on a house or is there anything I need to do i.e. contact the council etc?
Thanks
D

Quazzie

d1234 wrote: »

Hi I live in the countryside and was thinking of putting a name on our house. The house is not part of an estate. What is the standard procedure for putting a name on a house or is there anything I need to do i.e. contact the council etc?
Thanks
D

Put a sign up the front for the postman, and when you fill out your address on forms etc, just use the house name.

d1234

Quazzie wrote: »

Put a sign up the front for the postman, and when you fill out your address on forms etc, just use the house name.

Thank you for that. Though it may have been more complicated!

234

Quazzie wrote: »

Put a sign up the front for the postman, and when you fill out your address on forms etc, just use the house name.

That's an offence under s.115(a) of the Nanny State (Pointless Regulation) Act, 1989.

Peregrinus

You can call your house anything you like, and you don't need anybody's permission.

For that matter, you can call somebody else's house anything you like, and you don't need anybody's permission.

Before you can truly say that your house is called "Castle d1234" (or whatever) I think you have to get to a position where it's called that not just by you, but by other people. So don't just put up a sign on the gatepost; put the name on your stationery (you do have your own printed stationery, don't you?) and trawl through all your bank accounts, electricity accounts, driver's licence records, etc, where you have an address for correspondence registered, changing the address to show the name you want your house to have. Change your entry in the phone book. Putting a sign on the gatepost doesn't accomplish much if in fact the house goes on being called what it's always been called. The name of the house is what's it's called, which is not necessarily what is written on the gatepost.

Santa Cruz

Get in before the other neighbours do. If you call your residence "Ballydung House" it can add thousands to its value and stops the neighbours from taking that name

No Pants

Just don't call it Dunroamin. That joke is so old, it's got grass growing on it.

VeeEmmy

No Pants wrote: »

Just don't call it Dunroamin. That joke is so old, it's got grass growing on it.

Or worse, Dunwerkin.

Five Lamps

234 wrote: »

That's an offence under s.115(a) of the Nanny State (Pointless Regulation) Act, 1989.

Well it's a pity that there isn't a national addressing standard rather than property owners and developers doing it themselves. Then we would have a coherant addressing system that would make life easier for everybody.

Behind every postcode system there's a good addressing system.

234

Five Lamps wrote: »

Well it's a pity that there isn't a national addressing standard rather than property owners and developers doing it themselves. Then we would have a coherant addressing system that would make life easier for everybody.

Behind every postcode system there's a good addressing system.

We need to address our problem with one-off housing in rural areas as well as any post code and addressing system. Not only does it create problems in these areas, it leads to problems in the allocation of resources, public transport, utilities, etc. Then people in rural areas complain when this is not available to them. Really, unless you are a farmer, one-off housing in the middle of some barren townland should no longer be permitted.

Little CuChulainn

Banished-She wrote: »

Or worse, Dunwerkin.

Disildous

Santa Cruz

234 wrote: »

We need to address our problem with one-off housing in rural areas as well as any post code and addressing system. Not only does it create problems in these areas, it leads to problems in the allocation of resources, public transport, utilities, etc. Then people in rural areas complain when this is not available to them. Really, unless you are a farmer, one-off housing in the middle of some barren townland should no longer be permitted.

We live in a free country not some dictatorship. Why can't people be allowed to live on their own land.

the cats pajamas

castle grey skull

fricatus

Santa Cruz wrote: »

We live in a free country not some dictatorship. Why can't people be allowed to live on their own land.

Because their doing so imposes costs (externalities) which are borne by the rest of us.

If someone wants to pay the full cost of providing them with electricity, running water, waste disposal, a postal service, emergency services, a road, a bus service and broadband, then people might have a little more sympathy with that question.

Some of these costs are recouped by ESB connection charges, development levies, and by the fact that there is no bus service in many rural areas, but many (e.g. the cost of a postal service) are not.

Apart from that, houses dotted all over the landscape are an eyesore. If they're all together in villages here and there, it looks much better. This is the norm in many countries, including the UK.

Quazzie

fricatus wrote: »

Because their doing so imposes costs (externalities) which are borne by the rest of us.

If someone wants to pay the full cost of providing them with electricity, running water, waste disposal, a postal service, emergency services, a road, a bus service and broadband, then people might have a little more sympathy with that question.

Some of these costs are recouped by ESB connection charges, development levies, and by the fact that there is no bus service in many rural areas, but many (e.g. the cost of a postal service) are not.

Apart from that, houses dotted all over the landscape are an eyesore. If they're all together in villages here and there, it looks much better. This is the norm in many countries, including the UK.

So should people who live in rural areas pay less taxes since they don't get use of the bus services? Should they pay less for phone connections since we don't get proper broadband?

secman

Don't call it "Seldomere" a dead give away to burgalars

234

Quazzie wrote: »

So should people who live in rural areas pay less taxes since they don't get use of the bus services? Should they pay less for phone connections since we don't get proper broadband?

For the most part urban area subsidise rural areas. Even though urban areas have access to better services, the concentration of people produces efficiency savings in other areas that are transferred back to rural areas.

If every local authority had to fund everything that they dealt with based entirely on the proportion of income which the population of their authority generates then rural areas would lose out in a dramatic manner.

234

Santa Cruz wrote: »

We live in a free country not some dictatorship. Why can't people be allowed to live on their own land.

We already heavily restrict the use of land through planning permission. All that I am proposing is a tightening up of the system. People would know in advance not to buy land unless there was permission in place so there would be no real question of people suddenly finding that they couldn't build a house after buying a plot.

Mycroft H

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Disildous

Bel Éire?

Graces7

234 wrote: »

We need to address our problem with one-off housing in rural areas as well as any post code and addressing system. Not only does it create problems in these areas, it leads to problems in the allocation of resources, public transport, utilities, etc. Then people in rural areas complain when this is not available to them. Really, unless you are a farmer, one-off housing in the middle of some barren townland should no longer be permitted.

what an extraordinary idea...i live in such a house ,the last in a succession of such houses. have never made any complaints such as you list and never would. my choice and my freedom.

Graces7

fricatus wrote: »

Because their doing so imposes costs (externalities) which are borne by the rest of us.

If someone wants to pay the full cost of providing them with electricity, running water, waste disposal, a postal service, emergency services, a road, a bus service and broadband, then people might have a little more sympathy with that question.

Some of these costs are recouped by ESB connection charges, development levies, and by the fact that there is no bus service in many rural areas, but many (e.g. the cost of a postal service) are not.

Apart from that, houses dotted all over the landscape are an eyesore. If they're all together in villages here and there, it looks much better. This is the norm in many countries, including the UK.

an post delivers to existing farms in rural areas so no problem there. we do pay postage costs. odd argument as we are amid trying to save rural post offices. i have digiweb so pay fully for internet.

a dictatorship ireland is not thankfully. many of us prefer quiet rural life . we have every right to make that choice

234

Graces7 wrote: »

an post delivers to existing farms in rural areas so no problem there. we do pay postage costs. odd argument as we are amid trying to save rural post offices. i have digiweb so pay fully for internet.

a dictatorship ireland is not thankfully. many of us prefer quiet rural life . we have every right to make that choice

Take the internet example. If there was less dispersion and providers were less focused on trying to improve quality over such a large area, then concentration would mean that we would all have faster broadband.

There are literally dozens of things like this. Roads: more concentrated housing means less traffic on small rural roads so less frequent maintenance required.

Even with An Post, it is clearly cheaper for them to deliver in built-up areas. While there will always be farms, dozens of bungalows in the same area means that they have to deliver to a more widely dispersed set of homes which is a less efficient use of resources.

Then you can move on to things like the inability to provide sewage facilities to rural homes which means that septic tanks are used. These are obviously potentially harmful to the environment and can affect groundwater supplies in certain circumstances.

Edit: In response to your comment on my post, I am not saying that you are selfishly choosing to build in a certain location and demand an allocation resources. It is simply the case that much of our infrastructure is organised on the basis of equal provision or strives for this (e.g. An Post). You don't have to be asking for it in order for the effect to be there.