Locals only - any update on a change to the 2005 guidelines?

the_syco

https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/chance-discovery-spells-end-of-locals-only-restriction-on-one-off-housing-450596.html

So, came across this article, and one of the bits that stuck out was

Clark says that restrictions in planning are exacerbating this flight from rural Ireland, yet there is a contrary view that scattered development is actually doing more to kill rural life than the restrictions. He does not accept that point.

“If you have restrictions in one off housing in rural Ireland then the people are not there to support rural villages and the rural village will die.

The government has said that

Minister Simon Coveney also recently addressed the matter in a parliamentary question concerning the European court ruling.

“My department is consulting planning authorities about modifying the guidelines to ensure that rural housing policies and objectives contained in development plans comply with Article 43 (Freedom of Movement of People) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

“On conclusion of these consultations, my department will engage with the European Commission on proposed changes to the guidelines, with a view to issuing updated guidelines to planning authorities on the matter in due course.”

But we all know that "in due course" is the Irish long finger.

From https://selfbuild.ie/news/roi-delay-htb-locals-only/ there is an update;

Update 15th February 2018: The Department of Housing told Selfbuild that negotiations with the European Commission were “ongoing”. On January 8th 2018 the position was that it would be “be a few weeks before any decision/announcement is made”; mid-December 2017 we were told “proposed changes” to be made to the 2005 Guidelines were expected to be finalised “early in 2018”.

So, it's now pretty much midway through 2018. Has there been any updates on this? Have been looking on Google, but with limited results.

Gumbo

It’s not a ‘locals only’ rule. Most people don’t understand that the sites in question are deemed not acceptable to be developed but they will make allowances for local needs.

So it’s a case that if the LA enforce this ruling then the land is sterilised and nobody gets planning.

arctictree

According to this, the locals only rule is here to stay:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/news/casey-government-to-lift-rural-housing-restriction-36382027.html

Deputy Casey said: 'I have discussed the matter with senior department officials and I am pleased to confirm that they have taken on board my concerns and will leave the social clause in place for the new NPF. This is a major U-turn from the Government, which I welcome. It means that community life can be sustained in rural areas in the years ahead.

the_syco

arctictree wrote: »

According to this, the locals only rule is here to stay:

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/news/casey-government-to-lift-rural-housing-restriction-36382027.html

Actually, no.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/news/casey-government-to-lift-rural-housing-restriction-36382027.html

'Currently, a person from a rural community can apply for planning to build a home under a social clause which includes them wanting to live close to their own family members. The government wanted to bring an end to this by insisting that applicants had specific economic needs to live in a rural area in order for permission to be granted.

'This would have been a disaster for rural Ireland. I was the first TD to highlight this in the Dail and called on the Government to back down on its plan.

It seems that he has ensured those with social ties to the area can still get PP, rather than only economic reasons. So should someone have ties to the social ties to the area, they'd be able to get PP.

kceire wrote: »

It’s not a ‘locals only’ rule. Most people don’t understand that the sites in question are deemed not acceptable to be developed but they will make allowances for local needs.

Ah, gotcha. From my reading of this, I'm guessing they won't be calling it "local needs", but rather a curtailing of one-off housing, with the exception of someone with social ties to the area, who will still be able to get PP.

Del2005

Regardless of the wording it's going to continue to destroy our countryside and kill our small towns and villages.

4ensic15

The small towns and villages are dying anyway. The shops in them are not viable. Building one-houses in remote areas means that there is automatic car dependency. People are going to shop in the nearest big town because it is cheaper. The shops in the small town fail and then the banks pull out. The result is that the guard and the teacher won't live in the small towns and commute in from the big towns. Confining development to existing reasonably sized settlements would do more for the small towns and villages. I was in Renvyle a few years ago. It is full of one off houses strung out over miles. It looks unsightly, increases the cost of services and makes the small settlements unviable except for a convenience store.

arctictree

the_syco wrote: »

Actually, no.

https://www.independent.ie/regionals/wicklowpeople/news/casey-government-to-lift-rural-housing-restriction-36382027.html


It seems that he has ensured those with social ties to the area can still get PP, rather than only economic reasons. So should someone have ties to the social ties to the area, they'd be able to get PP.


Ah, gotcha. From my reading of this, I'm guessing they won't be calling it "local needs", but rather a curtailing of one-off housing, with the exception of someone with social ties to the area, who will still be able to get PP.

As far as I can see, the social clause is very much the same as the locals only rule. Very open to interpretation by individual councils.

Del2005

Del2005 wrote: »

Regardless of the wording it's going to continue to destroy our countryside and kill our small towns and villages.

No it doesn't on either count, anyone who has family ties or economic need to build in an area should without doubt be allowed to continue doing so rather than force them where they don't want to live, in smaller and more expensive houses, not beside their family or the farms they are helping on/running etc etc.

Del2005

Ivy Nervous Repellent wrote: »

No it doesn't on either count, anyone who has family ties or economic need to build in an area should without doubt be allowed to continue doing so rather than force them where they don't want to live, in smaller and more expensive houses, not beside their family or the farms they are helping on/running etc etc.

Farmers don't need that much help that we can continue to blight our countryside with houses. Why does a house within walking distance of village need to be smaller?

cruizer101

Ivy Nervous Repellent wrote: »

No it doesn't on either count, anyone who has family ties or economic need to build in an area should without doubt be allowed to continue doing so rather than force them where they don't want to live, in smaller and more expensive houses, not beside their family or the farms they are helping on/running etc etc.

Why? What reason is there that someone should get preferential treatment to live beside their family over someone else who wants to live there. Even living beside your farm isn't necessary, why can't you you live a 10 min drive away.

Houses should either be allowed or not regardless of who you are or your connection to the area.

beauf

I'm kinda conflicted about it. Yeah I get there whole keeping families and community together.

But the country side is now very unattractive with the littering of bespoke and often very ugly houses everywhere. Other countries are aware of the impact this has on tourism in the long term. We don't seem to care.

But it's the same in urban situations also. They are over ruling planning objections everywhere. At this point its pointless objecting as anything goes. Even where it makes no sense.

The developers and builders are back in charge again. You can only assume nationally the whole planning and regulation is meaningless. Too much money involved.

cruizer101

cruizer101 wrote: »

Why? What reason is there that someone should get preferential treatment to live beside their family over someone else who wants to live there. Even living beside your farm isn't necessary, why can't you you live a 10 min drive away.

Houses should either be allowed or not regardless of who you are or your connection to the area.

Because it's their land so of course they should get preferential treatment and yes you do need to live right beside the farm, only someone who has no idea about it would make this statement.

Also it means you can actually build the house you want rather than some house built for you, stuck on top of another house who you don't know the people with small gardens etc rather than next door to your family where you can pop in and out, drop off kids easily in the mornings, help out each other both on the farm and in other areas, being close to parents as they get older etc etc.

cruizer101

Ivy Nervous Repellent wrote: »

yes you do need to live right beside the farm, only someone who has no idea about it would make this statement.

Why? In lots of countries people don't live on their farms and it works fine, what difference does living 5-10 minutes away make

Ivy Nervous Repellent wrote: »

Also it means you can actually build the house you want rather than some house built for you, stuck on top of another house who you don't know the people with small gardens etc rather than next door to your family where you can pop in and out, drop off kids easily in the mornings, help out each other both on the farm and in other areas, being close to parents as they get older etc etc.

Why can't I build the house I want where I want, there is no good reason for the preferential treatment. I would potentially like to live walking distance to my parents but I can't, so I accept it why shouldn't they do the same

cruizer101

cruizer101 wrote: »

Why? In lots of countries people don't live on their farms and it works fine, what difference does living 5-10 minutes away make

It makes a massive difference living 10 mins away when you have some jobs to do in the morning before going to work or when you have cows calving/sheep lambing and you want to be checking last thing before bed, getting up at night checking etc etc etc etc where having travel any distance would make it far far more difficult. Even from a security perspective it's important to be on the farm where you can keep an eye on things.

You are likely talking about big commercial farms and in this case ones who bred would have living facilities onsite like mobile homes where night time employees would sleep etc.

And that's just the farm, leaving out all the other aspects that people want to live close to family even for those siblings who are not actively farming etc.

cruizer101 wrote: »

Why can't I build the house I want where I want

Because you don't own the land to do so

cruizer101 wrote: »

there is no good reason for the preferential treatment. I would potentially like to live walking distance to my parents but I can't, so I accept it why shouldn't they do the same

There is very good reasons many of which I have outlined, of couse at the end of the day the only issue you have is jealously and bedgrudgery. I have no land and can't build my own house so why should anyone else :rolleyes:

Lumen

There are presumably enough farmhouses to house all the farmers, so I don't see why it's necessary to allow more to be built.

Water John

We have traditionally a different, housing pattern than other countries. What says, the're right and we're wrong?
The countryside is all a patchwork of grass fields. Both of these are man made constructs. The ditches were hand built and grass is a non native species.