Local Needs Exemptions

Eric Cartman

So I grew up in a housing estate in North Kildare. I currently rent in the area and have done for the past decade. I have literally no interest in living in a housing estate or village. I always wanted to build my own house on a site.

The problem for me seems to occur with local needs planning, There are some sites available within the distance, but I did not grow up in the 'rural community' and there are also some sites outside the radius that are far cheaper.

Is there any way of me legally (no grey area tricks or lies or false applications) getting an exemption from local needs to build a house.

If there are not, can anyone suggest whats the bare minimum on a site required that I could apply for 'replacement dwelling' permission and build that way.

quadrifoglio verde

Find a country girl with a bit of road frontage.

It is quite difficult though. My boss bought an old cottage and bulldozed it. Council wouldn't even let him build a dormer as the lane had some 1940s cottages on it and a dormer wasnt in keeping with the area.

Really unless you've grown up on a farm and building on it, or marrying into that, an old bungalow with a decent and site might be the way to go.

trobbin

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Find a country girl with a bit of road frontage.

It is quite difficult though. My boss bought an old cottage and bulldozed it. Council wouldn't even let him build a dormer as the lane had some 1940s cottages on it and a dormer wasnt in keeping with the area.

Really unless you've grown up on a farm and building on it, or marrying into that, an old bungalow with a decent and site might be the way to go.

AFAIK there's know way around local needs. It's a silly rule anyway, it actually sounds like discrimination by the county councils. Surely that'd never happen in Ireland.

davindub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So I grew up in a housing estate in North Kildare. I currently rent in the area and have done for the past decade. I have literally no interest in living in a housing estate or village. I always wanted to build my own house on a site.

The problem for me seems to occur with local needs planning, There are some sites available within the distance, but I did not grow up in the 'rural community' and there are also some sites outside the radius that are far cheaper.

Is there any way of me legally (no grey area tricks or lies or false applications) getting an exemption from local needs to build a house.

If there are not, can anyone suggest whats the bare minimum on a site required that I could apply for 'replacement dwelling' permission and build that way.

There should be a new development plan 2017. I doubt they have removed the local needs criteria though, there are versions of this throughout the country.

Unfortunately, the councils persist with this (Kildare actually only introduced local needs in 2011) despite a EU ruling on 2007 that it was illegal to restrict building to locals only. Might be worth sending a letter to the council before the plan is released.

Other than that, the replacement dwellings clause is restricted to local needs. You can refurbish a derelict house, but the walls must be intact.

newacc2015

trobbin wrote: »

AFAIK there's know way around local needs. It's a silly rule anyway, it actually sounds like discrimination by the county councils. Surely that'd never happen in Ireland.

It is not a silly rule. In fact I dont think anyone local or not should be allowed to live in rural areas. Everyone should at least live in villages. If you go to Germany or the Netherlands, one off housing is few and far between. You will drive for kilometers and not see a house. Then suddenly you will come to a village of a few hundred houses. Germany and Netherlands have superior services outside of towns and cities, as housing is planned in such a manner, that you can provide services to these areas.

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

I know people who lived in mobile homes for years to claim being local.

pablo128

Rubbish. I worked in rural Holland and there were one off houses around the place.

Lumen

newacc2015 wrote: »

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

Those costs are sunk and unless you're going to demolish the houses already out there every new house makes those services more efficient to deliver.

Mrs OBumble

OP do you actually want to be a farmer and make your living from the land?

If so then i have some sympathy for your challenge - But the real question is how yor can afford a farm ....

trobbin

newacc2015 wrote: »

It is not a silly rule. In fact I dont think anyone local or not should be allowed to live in rural areas. Everyone should at least live in villages. If you go to Germany or the Netherlands, one off housing is few and far between. You will drive for kilometers and not see a house. Then suddenly you will come to a village of a few hundred houses. Germany and Netherlands have superior services outside of towns and cities, as housing is planned in such a manner, that you can provide services to these areas.

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

I know people who lived in mobile homes for years to claim being local.

In an ideal Ireland you're correct. I also agree with most of your points. However, when I called it a silly discriminatory rule, I was referring to the fact that person A is allowed build while person B isn't, that's the problem.

Of course rural Ireland should be preserved, but it should be one rule for all. Places like Rush and Lusk have LN, and they've lost their rural standing long ago.

newacc2015

newacc2015 wrote: »

It is not a silly rule. In fact I dont think anyone local or not should be allowed to live in rural areas. Everyone should at least live in villages. If you go to Germany or the Netherlands, one off housing is few and far between. You will drive for kilometers and not see a house. Then suddenly you will come to a village of a few hundred houses. Germany and Netherlands have superior services outside of towns and cities, as housing is planned in such a manner, that you can provide services to these areas.

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

I know people who lived in mobile homes for years to claim being local.

A lot of people don't want to live in villages or estates. They want space, room for large multi car garages, proper sized 4 or 5 bedroomed houses with lots of space around for garden, parking etc. They want a house built to the way they would like, laid out how they want and to the specifications they want not one build the same as next door and lacking lots of the features many people want. People also want privacy and be able to play loud music or have a party or what ever and not need to worry about annoying neighbours or vice versa and not be annoyed by neighbours. Just becuse you are happy to live in urban areas does not mean others are and urban dwellers should have no say whatsoever on where others decide to live.

Having grown up and lived most of my live in a very rural area and spent the last few years in an urban area there is simply no comparison rural life is far superior and I couldn't see myself settling down properly anywhere except rural. Bringing up kids etc is so much better also in a rural setting, I had such a brilliant childhood that most of what I did would have been impossible living urban.

Alun

pablo128 wrote: »

Rubbish. I worked in rural Holland and there were one off houses around the place.

I lived there for a number of years too, and I'd be fairly certain the majority of those were farms, or else legacy properties built before they implemented proper planning procedures. There's no way on earth you'd get permission to build a new house in such areas these days.

Eric Cartman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP do you actually want to be a farmer and make your living from the land?

If so then i have some sympathy for your challenge - But the real question is how yor can afford a farm ....

Im not looking for 20, 50, 100+ acres, im talking about a 1 acre site to put a house on, not running a farm or keeping horses, just something thats atleast 50-100 meters away from another house on all sides.

ThisRegard

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

Bringing up kids etc is so much better also in a rural setting, I had such a brilliant childhood that most of what I did would have been impossible living urban.

It's for another thread altogether but I think that's debatable. When recently buying our house we intend to be in until at least retirement we had this discussion for a long time before finally deciding to go for a best of both worlds type approach. Ultimately we thought it better for us and the kids not to be living in a completely rural setting, and my wife couldn't have grown up in a more rural area.

FishOnABike

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not looking for 20, 50, 100+ acres, im talking about a 1 acre site to put a house on, not running a farm or keeping horses, just something thats at least 50-100 meters away from another house on all sides.

That's either much more than an acre or there's nothing to stop another house being built a few feet away on an adjacent site in future.

Eric Cartman

FishOnABike wrote: »

That's either much more than an acre or there's nothing to stop another house being built a few feet away on an adjacent site in future.

Im going to assume that somebody buying an adjacent parcel of land would also build in the middle of their parcel , also theres ribbon development rules may help

JimmyMW

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So I grew up in a housing estate in North Kildare. I currently rent in the area and have done for the past decade. I have literally no interest in living in a housing estate or village. I always wanted to build my own house on a site.

The problem for me seems to occur with local needs planning, There are some sites available within the distance, but I did not grow up in the 'rural community' and there are also some sites outside the radius that are far cheaper.

Is there any way of me legally (no grey area tricks or lies or false applications) getting an exemption from local needs to build a house.

If there are not, can anyone suggest whats the bare minimum on a site required that I could apply for 'replacement dwelling' permission and build that way.

Are you currently renting inside or outside the development boundary, if you were renting in the rural zone for the past decade I'm pretty sure you would qualify for a local housing need, within that rural zone.

riclad

i know someone who bought a large house 60 years old, in a rural area,
knocked it down and built a new house.
The new house is built to look like an old house,
with victorian style doors and windows .Theres old cottages for sale in most
area,s that need renovation .
Theres almost no blocks or bricks used in the exterior walls .
Just stones and cement .

SarahMollie

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

A lot of people don't want to live in villages or estates. They want space, room for large multi car garages, proper sized 4 or 5 bedroomed houses with lots of space around for garden, parking etc. They want a house built to the way they would like, laid out how they want and to the specifications they want not one build the same as next door and lacking lots of the features many people want. People also want privacy and be able to play loud music or have a party or what ever and not need to worry about annoying neighbours or vice versa and not be annoyed by neighbours. Just becuse you are happy to live in urban areas does not mean others are and urban dwellers should have no say whatsoever on where others decide to live.

I totally disagree. The wants of individuals are not important IMO. Much of rural ireland has been blighted by one off housing and that actually ruins the landscape for the majority.

If you go to the south of England, areas within the reach of London, I never cease to be amazed at how they've managed to preserve large areas of green space so close to a major world city. People live in semi rural towns and villiages therefore availing of public services in an efficient manor.

In contrast, Ireland is blighted by one off dwellings, because people feel entitled to build where they grew up, to the determent of the country overall. The same people will moan about broadband, local hospital closures, lack of transport services etc, but the reality is the state has to prioritize for the greater good, and until Irish people learn that that means a proper planning strategy we will continue to pay too much for basic services.

Just because a person wants to build a big house in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean they should be allowed to. The betterment of the country ought to come before the wants of any individual. In my view, these rules aren't strict enough.

SarahMollie

SarahMollie wrote: »

I totally disagree. The wants of individuals are not important IMO. Much of rural ireland has been blighted by one off housing and that actually ruins the landscape for the majority.

If you go to the south of England, areas within the reach of London, I never cease to be amazed at how they've managed to preserve large areas of green space so close to a major world city. People live in semi rural towns and villiages therefore availing of public services in an efficient manor.

In contrast, Ireland is blighted by one off dwellings, because people feel entitled to build where they grew up, to the determent of the country overall. The same people will moan about broadband, local hospital closures, lack of transport services etc, but the reality is the state has to prioritize for the greater good, and until Irish people learn that that means a proper planning strategy we will continue to pay too much for basic services.

Just because a person wants to build a big house in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean they should be allowed to. The betterment of the country ought to come before the wants of any individual. In my view, these rules aren't strict enough.

In other words it won't impact on me so it shouldn't be allowed. There is plenty of landscape to see in Ireland what are you going to be doing down a boreen in an area away from tourist areas that peoples homes are going to bother you.

Sure lets stop people building homes on their own land where they are beside family and the farm they will most likely be running in future and force them into towns where they have to drive out to drop their kids for minding and drive to do work on the farm. Madness, whatever about people not from the area it can and should never be introduced that people cannot build on their own land, its would be absolutely stupid and unfair along with very costly for those who have land to build on rather than have to buy it.

And for what so you can look into a field when you are passing by, or not passing by as most of these houses are build on dead end roads of no interest to tourist but very important for people to live.

As far as services are concerned BB etc is being rolled out to all rural areas already and the more people that avail of it the better. Its needed by farmers anyway and these have to live in the country so the fact a lot more people will use it makes it a much better investment.

Just to add not everywhere has a local needs rule, there is no such rule in place in my home county, anyone can buy a site and build there. Not that it will effect me when I go to build as I has I would qualify for it anyway.

Lumen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not looking for 20, 50, 100+ acres, im talking about a 1 acre site to put a house on, not running a farm or keeping horses, just something thats atleast 50-100 meters away from another house on all sides.

FishOnABike wrote: »

That's either much more than an acre or there's nothing to stop another house being built a few feet away on an adjacent site in future.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im going to assume that somebody buying an adjacent parcel of land would also build in the middle of their parcel , also theres ribbon development rules may help

Houses tend not to be in the centre of sites for all sorts of reasons - drainage, sight lines, trees, soil.

I'm on 0.8/acre and the distances from external house walls to those of the surrounding houses/road are about 50m, 25m, 30m, 35m.

If the neighbours were noisy I'd hear them (they're not).

Humans are programmed to adjust to their surroundings. It's amazing how quickly I adjusted to the quiet and became supersensitive to noise.

tldr: if you want seclusion you need a few acres off a quiet road.

SarahMollie

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

In other words it won't impact on me so it shouldn't be allowed. There is plenty of landscape to see in Ireland what are you going to be doing down a boreen in an area away from tourist areas that peoples homes are going to bother you.

Sure lets stop people building homes on their own land where they are beside family and the farm they will most likely be running in future and force them into towns where they have to drive out to drop their kids for minding and drive to do work on the farm. Madness, whatever about people not from the area it can and should never be introduced that people cannot build on their own land, its would be absolutely stupid and unfair along with very costly for those who have land to build on rather than have to buy it.

And for what so you can look into a field when you are passing by, or not passing by as most of these houses are build on dead end roads of no interest to tourist but very important for people to live.

As far as services are concerned BB etc is being rolled out to all rural areas already and the more people that avail of it the better. Its needed by farmers anyway and these have to live in the country so the fact a lot more people will use it makes it a much better investment.

Just to add not everywhere has a local needs rule, there is no such rule in place in my home county, anyone can buy a site and build there. Not that it will effect me when I go to build as I has I would qualify for it anyway.

When you compair Ireland with other countries, its apparent that people have built anywhere and everywhere, without any strategy. Of course if the decision is left to the individual, then they're going to suit themselves, but thats why policy needs to come at a national level, to prevent such me-fein-ism

If a person is going to take over a farm, why not then take over the farmhouse? Why does each generation have to build more and more one off dwellings. Its fairly common for multiple adult children from the same family to each build on separate portions of the same land. Why does the number of dwellings constantly have to increase? If they must all build, why can it not be organised so that they create their own little hamlet of sorts? But no, everyone must build a house on their own acre of land and therefore continually increase the number of blots on the landscape.

Peoples individual rights (regardless of where they are from) should not trump the rights of the greater population to a well organised and well planned country with efficient services.

By the way, services provided in many such areas are subject to subventions by the tax payer. If people want to live in isolation, let them then foot the real cost/and or deal with the realities of not having services when its not economical for them to be provided. I can certainly think of areas where that money could be better spent rather than encouraging one off housing.

Lumen

SarahMollie wrote: »

Why does the number of dwellings constantly have to increase? If they must all build, why can it not be organised so that they create their own little hamlet of sorts? But no, everyone must build a house on their own acre of land and therefore continually increase the number of blots on the landscape.

Blots on the landscape? This is Kildare. You can't see any landscape unless you're in a helicopter.

And the "blot" is only a "blot" if it's ugly and unsympathetically designed, which is an architecture/landscaping problem not a dwelling distribution problem.

Look at this ugly McVilla, for instance. Shocking blot on the landscape.

Arcade_Tryer

newacc2015 wrote: »

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

Lots of rural dwellers pay for their water usage through rural water schemes, so in that sense they're in fact way ahead of the efficient, sustainable living urban dwellers. People should be allowed to live in one off dwellings. They should just have to pay for the privilege. And of course planning regulations should prevent obviously obscene building.

If people have the money, and are willing to spend it on rural one off housing, then surely charging them significantly more for those services you mention and additional property and land tax, is more beneficial to society than preventing them from building because you want to see an extra field among the thousands when you visit the countryside? Seems more like bitterness than any aim towards efficiency and preserving the landscape.

Let them build. And let them pay for it.

Eric Cartman

Lumen wrote: »

Houses tend not to be in the centre of sites for all sorts of reasons - drainage, sight lines, trees, soil.

I'm on 0.8/acre and the distances from external house walls to those of the surrounding houses/road are about 50m, 25m, 30m, 35m.

If the neighbours were noisy I'd hear them (they're not).

Humans are programmed to adjust to their surroundings. It's amazing how quickly I adjusted to the quiet and became supersensitive to noise.

tldr: if you want seclusion you need a few acres off a quiet road.

hmm, I take your point onboard. I may have to adjust some plans for more space. Realistically I'm not talking about holding a music festival in a garden, but I'm not going to buy a house where my ability to use an angle grinder or listen to an album with the bass up full is dictated by somebody who is not in my family's sleeping pattern.

Victor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

hmm, I take your point onboard. I may have to adjust some plans for more space. Realistically I'm not talking about holding a music festival in a garden, but I'm not going to buy a house where my ability to use an angle grinder or listen to an album with the bass up full is dictated by somebody who is not in my family's sleeping pattern.

What's wrong with living on a big site near a town or village?

the_syco

Victor wrote: »

What's wrong with living on a big site near a town or village?

Price. Land near a town or village is often priced to be sold to a developer.

Eric Cartman

Victor wrote: »

What's wrong with living on a big site near a town or village?

As above , price, for pub access id love an acre or 2 that was 5 mins from the bus stop and pub, realistically those sites are 3x the price if not more as theyd fit a whole housing estate in them.

I currently rent a house thats one of only 2 on a 2 acre site , 10 mins walk to the village centre , the sute on its own would cost about 1 million where it is.

Im looking to spend <150k

Victor

Is this a case of wanting your cake and eating it?

Eric Cartman

Victor wrote: »

Is this a case of wanting your cake and eating it?

Well i know i cant have space, village access and cheap, so ive decided to give up on village access, I can have space and cheap, except for this planning speedbump

hytrogen

Emmaline Pitiful Sugarcane wrote:

Having grown up and lived most of my live in a very rural area and spent the last few years in an urban area there is simply no comparison rural life is far superior and I couldn't see myself settling down properly anywhere except rural. Bringing up kids etc is so much better also in a rural setting, I had such a brilliant childhood that most of what I did would have been impossible living urban.

Cow tipping?

Eric Cartman look we all want the pearly white fencing around out enclave in isolation, away from the noisy neighbours teenage durtbag garage band practicing at all hours but realistically the human impact and footprint we've made on the countryside is unsustainable.
TV has sold us this impossible aspiration through travel program and property shows. The grass isn't always as greener, especially later on in life when you'd like to borrow that bowl of sugar off the neighbours a mile down the road and you're with your zimmer frame or when the kids grow up, move to work in the big smoke and don't come to visit anymore..
Human nature is social interaction as well as own space needs, finding the right balanced is the aspiration.

Lumen

hytrogen wrote: »

realistically the human impact and footprint we've made on the countryside is unsustainable

The countryside is mostly a big green factory running on oil.

I don't think a few extra houses make a lot of difference.

Eric Cartman

hytrogen wrote: »

Cow tipping?

Eric Cartman look we all want the pearly white fencing around out enclave in isolation, away from the noisy neighbours teenage durtbag garage band practicing at all hours but realistically the human impact and footprint we've made on the countryside is unsustainable.
TV has sold us this impossible aspiration through travel program and property shows. The grass isn't always as greener, especially later on in life when you'd like to borrow that bowl of sugar off the neighbours a mile down the road and you're with your zimmer frame or when the kids grow up, move to work in the big smoke and don't come to visit anymore..
Human nature is social interaction as well as own space needs, finding the right balanced is the aspiration.

Tv hasnt sold me anything, im not expecting to build a 7000sq ft recreation of buckingham palace here but on paper Im a neighbour from hell, I don't like being restricted to stopping working on cars or building things at 11pm , or telling people to quiet down or turning the music down. If I was a less considerate person all of my previous neighbours would have had me locked up, Im being considerate to others in that I get my best work done between midnight and 4am , I like having people over and I intend to own a lot more cars than the 3 I already have , in order to be part of a functional society I have understood that I simply cannot do what I want while I have neighbours within earshot, so the solution is to not have neighbours within earshot. Im never going to be a 9-5er in bed by 12 , so a one off house, for societys sake aswell as my own is the only solution

the_syco

hytrogen wrote: »

Human nature is social interaction as well as own space needs, finding the right balanced is the aspiration.

I live in Toronto now, but when I come back to Ireland, I won't be living in an estate; one of my cars was vandalised with paint before whilst living in an estate (no reason, no-one owned up to it). I'm also pretty sure EC's vehicles have suffered as well in the past by begrudges. Having stayed in friends apartments in Dublin, the ability to hear the neighbours flushing their toilet shows the inability of builders to build decent apartments, so all that's left is a house outside the estates.

Also, estates only allow limited amount of cars. If everyone in the house has at least one car, parking becomes fun. Living in a house in the countryside doesn't restrict the amount of car parking spaces for your house as an estate would.

hytrogen

hytrogen wrote: »

The grass isn't always as greener, especially later on in life when you'd like to borrow that bowl of sugar off the neighbours a mile down the road and you're with your zimmer frame or when the kids grow up, move to work in the big smoke and don't come to visit anymore..
Human nature is social interaction as well as own space needs, finding the right balanced is the aspiration.

Except lots of course people living in the country are far more likely to have their children living right next door rather than far away compared to those in the city as if you grow up in the city you don't exactly have the space to build your own home beside the home house. Also neighbours are often much closer than a mile away especially when you have a few houses of the same family and sure why would younger walking when you can drive which is a lot easier to do in the county than in a city. My home house is built next door to my dad's home house and I plan to build next door too hardly gone to the big some and never visiting. Even part time farms won't look after themselves and these will continue to be passed down through the generations so there will always be people around.

newacc2015

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

A lot of people don't want to live in villages or estates. They want space, room for large multi car garages, proper sized 4 or 5 bedroomed houses with lots of space around for garden, parking etc. They want a house built to the way they would like, laid out how they want and to the specifications they want not one build the same as next door and lacking lots of the features many people want. People also want privacy and be able to play loud music or have a party or what ever and not need to worry about annoying neighbours or vice versa and not be annoyed by neighbours.

That is all possible in urban areas too. It just costs a lot more and here lies the issue. You can build a McMansion super cheap in the arsehole of nowhere as the land is cheaper and construction costs are cheaper. People want to build a massive home in middle of nowhere as it is cheap.

You can do self build in Dublin to. You can build the house as you wish. You can have parties in Dublin too if you have good sound proofing.

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

Just becuse you are happy to live in urban areas does not mean others are and urban dwellers should have no say whatsoever on where others decide to live.

Actually we should. Guess who is subsidising your McMansion with a house every 3/4 kilometers and paying for broadband connection as you choose not to live in an area with decent services? Urban dwellers. Money that could be spent in urban areas has to go fund inefficient developments in low density urban areas.

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

Having grown up and lived most of my live in a very rural area and spent the last few years in an urban area there is simply no comparison rural life is far superior and I couldn't see myself settling down properly anywhere except rural. Bringing up kids etc is so much better also in a rural setting, I had such a brilliant childhood that most of what I did would have been impossible living urban.

What is superior about rural living other than your McMansion? There is no public transport, poor quality internet, if any etc. Urban living is unappealing for rural dwellers as they spend a few years in Dublin for College (where they go home every weekend usually...), where they live in the worst parts of Dublin in the worst quality accommodation. Rural dwellers fail to see what Dublin can offer, as they dont experience it/dont want to experience it. I know people who went to college in Dublin and did not spend more than a handful of weekends in Dublin

Eric Cartman

newacc2015 wrote: »

That is all possible in urban areas too. It just costs a lot more and here lies the issue. You can build a McMansion super cheap in the arsehole of nowhere as the land is cheaper and construction costs are cheaper. People want to build a massive home in middle of nowhere as it is cheap.

Considering your house is usually the single biggest purchase most people ever make, the price difference certainly plays into it a lot. A modest 2000sq ft home in an urban environment in not an awful area of dublin will cost you 600k + minimum. The same thing to be built yourself , 10 minutes drive from a motorway would be 350-400k.

You can do self build in Dublin to. You can build the house as you wish. You can have parties in Dublin too if you have good sound proofing.



Actually we should. Guess who is subsidising your McMansion with a house every 3/4 kilometers and paying for broadband connection as you choose not to live in an area with decent services? Urban dwellers. Money that could be spent in urban areas has to go fund inefficient developments in low density urban areas.

Ribbon development rules to protect non existent scenery are what causes this problem, not people looking to build. Most people would love to live on an acre on Howth hill etc.. if they could, with all the services and the space. But family ties and price are the two biggest reasons people choose to live rurally.

What is superior about rural living other than your McMansion? There is no public transport, poor quality internet, if any etc. Urban living is unappealing for rural dwellers as they spend a few years in Dublin for College (where they go home every weekend usually...), where they live in the worst parts of Dublin in the worst quality accommodation. Rural dwellers fail to see what Dublin can offer, as they dont experience it/dont want to experience it. I know people who went to college in Dublin and did not spend more than a handful of weekends in Dublin

Public transport - Yeah its a problem, but not everyone really needs it. We're also on the cusp of self driving cars, which (if its hopefully legally allowed) be the rebirth of the rural pub, and the saving grace for children, the elderly and the disabled in rural Ireland. By the time I am retired this will be common place.

Broadband - 4G mobile networks and other wireless technologies have helped progress this leaps and bounds, its only getting better.

I work in dublin every day, I live just outside a village that has a dublin bus route. I go drinking in dublin every weekend. I have nothing against dublin at all. But if I wanted to live in the type of house I want to build, in a nice part of dublin, i'd be talking 1.2 million quid easily , I don't have that. In exchange for an extra 20 minutes a day of commuting, I can have that for under 400k.

Victor

the_syco wrote: »

Also, estates only allow limited amount of cars. If everyone in the house has at least one car, parking becomes fun.

Average household size in Ireland is 2.7. If there are more than 3.7 cars in a household, you have to ask yourself why.

Arcade_Tryer

Victor wrote: »

Average household size in Ireland is 2.7. If there are more than 3.7 cars in a household, you have to ask yourself why.

A person can have as many cars as they like as long as they're willing to pay for them. And a person should be allowed live where they like (within reason of course) as long as they're willing to pay for it i.e. in terms of the additional strain on services mentioned already in this thread.

I'd much prefer a situation where a person choosing to build in the countryside can do so cheaper than in Dublin City or close to a town, but pays a higher cost overall through various additional taxes for the privilege of doing so.

Eric Cartman

Arcade_Tryer wrote: »

A person can have as many cars as they like as long as they're willing to pay for them. And a person should be allowed live where they like (within reason of course) as long as they're willing to pay for it i.e. in terms of the additional strain on services mentioned already in this thread.

I'd much prefer a situation where a person choosing to build in the countryside can do so cheaper than in Dublin City or close to a town, but pays a higher cost overall through various additional taxes for the privilege of doing so.

This 'additional taxation' already occurs. Rural dwellers are paying tax to subsidise the luas, dublin bus, and all the other services.

Somebody living rurally with a private well, own septic tank, who drives (very common scenario) still pays the same taxation as somebody living in dublin city who gets the bus , has their roads swept outside, has street lights, footpaths maintained, litter bins , etc....

Urban living comes with a lot of services, because those people expect and want a lot of services. Rural dwellers only want broadband and the pothole in the road fixed, depend on themselves for everything else , and you think they should pay additional taxes for it

awec

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

Except lots of course people living in the country are far more likely to have their children living right next door rather than far away compared to those in the city as if you grow up in the city you don't exactly have the space to build your own home beside the home house. Also neighbours are often much closer than a mile away especially when you have a few houses of the same family and sure why would younger walking when you can drive which is a lot easier to do in the county than in a city. My home house is built next door to my dad's home house and I plan to build next door too hardly gone to the big some and never visiting. Even part time farms won't look after themselves and these will continue to be passed down through the generations so there will always be people around.

I doubt this is as prevalent as you are making out.

testaccount123

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This 'additional taxation' already occurs. Rural dwellers are paying tax to subsidise the luas, dublin bus, and all the other services.

The tax take from rural Ireland doesnt come close to paying for rural Ireland nevermind for services anywhere else.

Arcade_Tryer

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This 'additional taxation' already occurs. Rural dwellers are paying tax to subsidise the luas, dublin bus, and all the other services.

Somebody living rurally with a private well, own septic tank, who drives (very common scenario) still pays the same taxation as somebody living in dublin city who gets the bus , has their roads swept outside, has street lights, footpaths maintained, litter bins , etc....

Urban living comes with a lot of services, because those people expect and want a lot of services. Rural dwellers only want broadband and the pothole in the road fixed, depend on themselves for everything else , and you think they should pay additional taxes for it

Rural living is still a luxury. And a privilege that should be paid for, especially by those choosing to build a one off, isolated home in the future.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Eric Cartman wrote: »

This 'additional taxation' already occurs. Rural dwellers are paying tax to subsidise the luas, dublin bus, and all the other services.

Bull. Rural dwellers are paying tax to cover a fraction of the services that they receive from the state.

athtrasna

Can we get back on topic please? Rural v urban is not why the thread was started.

newacc2015

newacc2015 wrote: »

That is all possible in urban areas too. It just costs a lot more and here lies the issue. You can build a McMansion super cheap in the arsehole of nowhere as the land is cheaper and construction costs are cheaper. People want to build a massive home in middle of nowhere as it is cheap.

You can do self build in Dublin to. You can build the house as you wish. You can have parties in Dublin too if you have good sound proofing.

Firstly I find it very hard to take anyone serious who uses that hoffiric word "McMansion". It reeks of jealousy from someone packed into a small house in an estate.

Why would I want to build a house in Dublin, I never had nor never will live there also its totally unaffrodable and finding a site would be very difficult. You basically want to keep self builds for the extremly wealthy who want to live in a city rather than those who want to live on their own land in rural areas.

Also where are you getting this "arse end of nowhere" nonsense. My home place is a 5min drive from the nearest town and 20mins drive to the nearest city yet there are parts of the farm I can stand at night and see no artificial light. I can be in the city faster than most people can be in from the suburbs of Dublin into the city centre.

newacc2015 wrote: »

Actually we should. Guess who is subsidising your McMansion with a house every 3/4 kilometers and paying for broadband connection as you choose not to live in an area with decent services? Urban dwellers. Money that could be spent in urban areas has to go fund inefficient developments in low density urban areas.

There are now 19 houses on the road I'm from and its just over 1km long, so again way off with your 3/4 km between houses. We also pay for our own water unlike all the great city folk, do most of the maintenance of the road ourselves (aside from actual surfacing), provide all our own transport etc. While we subsidise all the infrastructure and money spent in Dublin and other cities.

newacc2015 wrote: »

What is superior about rural living other than your McMansion? There is no public transport, poor quality internet, if any etc. Urban living is unappealing for rural dwellers as they spend a few years in Dublin for College (where they go home every weekend usually...), where they live in the worst parts of Dublin in the worst quality accommodation. Rural dwellers fail to see what Dublin can offer, as they dont experience it/dont want to experience it. I know people who went to college in Dublin and did not spend more than a handful of weekends in Dublin

Well having a proper sized house is a massive thing, having grown up and lived most of my life in proper house city houses are tiny and no use for what I'd want in a house. I've never spend any longer than two days in a row in Dublin. There are plenty of other universities around the country many with commuting distance of large swathes of rural parts of Ireland, I had no need to move anywhere to go to university. Growing up I had freedom no city person would have, acres to play in and explore, working on the farm from an early age (and getting some money for it) which I really enjoyed. Learned to dive when I was still single a single digit age also, I could write pages on the great things about it.

As for facilities as I said a large part of rural Ireland is not a that far from the nearest urban centre where all facilities are, not having public transport is no big deal (I drive 95% of the time even though there is a bus stop outside my house where I'm living at the moment) and well there may not have been good BB but soon my home place will have a 1G fibre to the home line and will in fact have much better BB than most people living in urban areas. The way urban people want rural people cast aside is infuriating, no wonder getting a TD for rural affairs is so needed.

awec wrote: »

I doubt this is as prevalent as you are making out.

Among people I know and around the area in general it is very common.

__Alex__

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

Firstly I find it very hard to take anyone serious who uses that hoffiric word "McMansion". It reeks of jealousy from someone packed into a small house in an estate.

The term McMansion doesn't refer to any large house just large houses that are designed without giving any thought to how the exterior of the property looks or large houses that are poorly designed and a bit tacky. McMansions are notorious for not giving any thought to how all those room add-ons affect the outside appearance of the property. Some large houses look an absoute dog's dinner from the outside. Getting every room designed that way you want with lots of different add-ons can have that affect.

There many nice large houses in Ireland but there are unfortunately a large number of eyesores too.

As for jealousy, well firstly, the person who coined the term is highly unlikely to be "packed in" to a small house. I'd say that person is doing well for themselves. If you're at the level of term-coining, you're likely comfortably well off as well as knowledgeable of architecture. Secondly, believe it or not, not everyone wants a large house. Many of us see them as wasteful and have little interest in the upkeep involved. It's honestly a bit classless to look down your nose at people who live in smaller houses than you.

newacc2015

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Considering your house is usually the single biggest purchase most people ever make, the price difference certainly plays into it a lot. A modest 2000sq ft home in an urban environment in not an awful area of dublin will cost you 600k + minimum. The same thing to be built yourself , 10 minutes drive from a motorway would be 350-400k.

So you past on a sizeable cost to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying for that motorway to pay for your choice of a larger house cheaper. The M50 would not have had to be updated, if it wasnt for the hundreds of thousands who work in Dublin but wanted a cheap house outside of it. Motorways should not built just to facilitate urban sprawl

It is more expensive to provide services to less dense areas and to new areas. We have schools in Dublin built for 1400 students currently with 400 students in them. Yet we are building new schools in commuter towns.

You personally might benefit from a cheaper house outside of the city, but society and taxpayer is worse off.

__Alex__

__Alex__ wrote: »

The term McMansion doesn't refer to any large house just large houses that are designed without giving any thought to how the exterior of the property looks or large houses that are poorly designed and a bit tacky. McMansions are notorious for not giving any thought to how all those room add-ons affect the outside appearance of the property. Some large houses look an absoute dog's dinner from the outside. Getting every room designed that way you want with lots of different add-ons can have that affect.

There many nice large houses in Ireland but there are unfortunately a large number of eyesores too.

Well the poster in question appears to be referring to every house that's not inside the M50.

__Alex__ wrote: »

As for jealousy, well firstly, the person who coined the term is highly unlikely to be "packed in" to a small house. I'd say that person is doing well for themselves. If you're at the level of term-coining, you're likely comfortably well off as well as knowledgeable of architecture. Secondly, believe it or not, not everyone wants a large house. Many of us see them as wasteful and have little interest in the upkeep involved. It's honestly a bit classless to look down your nose at people who live in smaller houses than you.

It may not have been coined by a normal individual (though who ever did coin it should be shot as its an infuriating term) but its almost exclusively used by urban dwellers to belittle rural dwellers in general and while I don't look down at people who choose to live in a smaller house anywhere (urban or rural) I do look down on those think they can dictate where I live and how big my house is. People are entitled to live in a small house but I am also entitled to build a 3000+ sq ft house if I choose to do so (once I satisfy planning requirements). The issue only arises when people start dictating, of which the majority don't of course.

Eric Cartman

newacc2015 wrote: »

So you past on a sizeable cost to the taxpayer. The taxpayer is paying for that motorway to pay for your choice of a larger house cheaper. The M50 would not have had to be updated, if it wasnt for the hundreds of thousands who work in Dublin but wanted a cheap house outside of it. Motorways should not built just to facilitate urban sprawl

It is more expensive to provide services to less dense areas and to new areas. We have schools in Dublin built for 1400 students currently with 400 students in them. Yet we are building new schools in commuter towns.

You personally might benefit from a cheaper house outside of the city, but society and taxpayer is worse off.

Did you ever consider that most people didn't make that choice, the urban sprawl and motorway updates were required precisely because families couldn't afford to live anywhere in dublin. The school's are empty because only twenty somethings without children working in high end jobs can afford to live there anymore. Urban sprawl was primarily caused by housing estates . Nobody ever built a motorway to serve a few houses on a secondary road. All these people have to live somewhere. Raising a family in an apartment in Ireland is never really going to happen, we're too set in our ways against them. The suburbs will sprawl, more housing estates will appear and people in one off houses will continue to have little impact on that.

back on topic. Is there a way to get an exemption or around local needs ?

athtrasna

Mod note

Enough of the urban v rural, this is not a contest!

John_Rambo

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

It may not have been coined by a normal individual (though who ever did coin it should be shot as its an infuriating term) but its almost exclusively used by urban dwellers to belittle rural dwellers in general and while I don't look down at people who choose to live in a smaller house anywhere (urban or rural) I do look down on those think they can dictate where I live and how big my house is. People are entitled to live in a small house but I am also entitled to build a 3000+ sq ft house if I choose to do so (once I satisfy planning requirements). The issue only arises when people start dictating, of which the majority don't of course.

It was actually phrase coined about American suburban houses (where the suburbs can be a hundred kilometres from the city). It means a large modern house that is considered ostentatious and lacking in architectural integrity constructed with low-quality materials and craftsmanship, using a mishmash of architectural symbols to invoke connotations of wealth or taste, executed via poorly thought-out exterior and interior design.

You see a lot of these in Ireland of late. A country with diminishing sized families that traditionally had modest dwellings that fitted in with or complemented the landscape.

It jars and has a negative impact on health both mental and physical along with making farm and infrastructure projects (wind, electrical, forestry etc...) difficult because of the sprawl.

Unfortunate, but people are short sighted.