easing of one-off housing rules

ishmael whale

It’s looks very much like a case of ‘we’re in a hole so we might as well go on digging.’ It’s not at all clear how easing of one-off housing rules fits in with any attempt at a sensible national spatial strategy, or with any concept of sustainable development or with any move toward encouraging settlement patterns that can be served by public transport or with anything, basically.

I think the article here from http://www.castlebar.ie/news/columns/markwaters/mw_oneoff_08.shtml, “One-off housing killed my cat” says pretty much all that needs to be said about the likely impact of this policy. “… A community of one-off houses has a serious disadvantage before it even starts out on the road to viability, sustainability and growth. Services cost more money and offer a poorer quality than they do in co-ordinated developments. Scarce resources are spread ever thinner across the landscape. The potential for economic development is limited. Everyone is pulling against everyone else instead of in the same direction.
Co-ordinated development does not provide the solution to all our problems but it provides a more solid foundation from which to tackle them….”


http://www.breakingnews.ie/2005/04/13/story197900.html

“Opposition concerned about easing of one-off housing rules
13/04/2005 - 12:46:19

Opposition politicians have expressed concern about a government move to make it easier for people to build one-off houses in the countryside. New guidelines published by the Government today oblige local authorities to allow such houses in scenic and protected areas, provided they do not cause too much harm.

The guidelines also oblige local councils not to be too restrictive when setting out what materials can be used in the construction of rural houses. The Labour Party has asked who will foot the cost of building infrastructure and providing vital services to houses that are scattered throughout the country.

The Green Party also expressed concern that farmers will engage in a massive sale of sites for one-off housing, thereby creating problems of sustainability in the future……”

ishmael whale

ishmael whale wrote:

The Labour Party has asked who will foot the cost of building infrastructure and providing vital services to houses that are scattered throughout the country.

I'm wondering about this.
Firstly if a house is built beside the road in the country, it needs water, electricity and of course sewerage treatment.
As far as I am aware the house builder bears all the cost of this.

They get a grant for to put in a water pump(everybody away from a public system gets that) but they must pay for the electricity to run the pump and of course the maintainence of the pump.They must pay for their own sewerage treatment system to the satisfaction of the council.

The ESB line is probably running beside the road as is the phone line.
There are already contributions to the costs of school busses from rural areas which run on serviced routes and which in a lot of cases kids who live off the route are brought to the nearest point by parents on a rota system.
The public road should be maintained anyway and their own access road is their own business, so what are we left with that is an extra cost borne by the taxpayer?

Tuars

ishmael whale wrote:

I think the article here from http://www.castlebar.ie/news/columns/markwaters/mw_oneoff_08.shtml, “One-off housing killed my cat” says pretty much all that needs to be said about the likely impact of this policy.

Thanks for the link. I wrote that a year and a half ago and it hasn't exactly changed the world . I haven't much to add to the argument but one thing that I have observed is that many people don't necessarily want to live in one-off housing but that for the type of house they want (i.e. bigger than your average semi-d and with a bit of space for the kids) they don't seem to have much choice.

The group housing developments that are being built these days seem to me to be more oriented towards investors looking to rent to single or childless professionals, they're not family friendly at all. So for many people looking to start a family the only feasible option is to go down the one-off route.

Look at the type of houses that are being built in the one-off category. Are there options to buy similiar types of houses in a group development? Usually not.

I think government policy should be to address this imbalance and give the people the option of living in a co-ordinated development of adequate sized houses. I think we would be surprised at how many would go that route if they had a choice. Of course government policy is being dictated by landowners rather than house buyers so until that changes it's going to be more of the same.

(And yes my cat was real and she did die and I do hold one-off housing responsible).

Boggle

Not everyone wants to live in a housing estate - and the over-restriction of planning permission is currently keepin buildable land at artificially high prices so I don't see the problem. Personally I would def prefer to live in a one off house than a housing estate...

Although I do believe they are sidestepping many of the main isssues such as the poor quality houses that developers can offload on people. Don't forget - you generally pay before they build and can't ask for a refund if you are not happy with the product.... problems such as soundproofing between rooms is a particular problem: I'm renting a brand new flat in limerick with a few other lads and in you can actually clearly hear conversations going on in the next bedroom.

Villain

Earthman wrote:

They get a grant for to put in a water pump(everybody away from a public system gets that) but they must pay for the electricity to run the pump and of course the maintainence of the pump.They must pay for their own sewerage treatment system to the satisfaction of the council.

Is this new, because my parents built a house with it's own well last year and didn't get any grant, the grant that was available was only for people who had water systems in place that needed to be replaced. We had to pay for the well being drilled and the pump.

ishmael whale

Tuars wrote:

Thanks for the link. I wrote that a year and a half ago and it hasn't exactly changed the world .

It’s an excellent article, and a fitting memorial to your lamented cat. It hasn't gone unnoticed - I’ve seen it cited on threads at www.archiseek.com.

Earthman wrote:

.....what are we left with that is an extra cost borne by the taxpayer?

The article below gives a flavour of the kind of costs involved.

Bear in mind its not just a question of things like the cost of keeping a surface on country roads running hither and dither (although inevitably the more dispersed your population, the more road you need to maintain). It’s also the way that people are inevitably committed to a car based lifestyle, which both cannot be served by public transport and reduces the potential demand for public transport. One of the main conceptual problems with the Western Rail Corridor is that the population density for much of its route is too dispersed. A dispersed population also gives downstream problems in delivery of health and education services.

http://archives.tcm.ie/irishexaminer/2004/03/06/story85340225.asp

“……. The Greens found that infrastructural and service costs associated with rural houses were far greater than for clusters of houses, but that most of the extra costs were being borne by the taxpayers.

It found that:

mail delivery to rural housing was three times more expensive;
waste collection was two and a half times dearer;
phone and electricity connections were between two and five times more expensive;
footpath provision and public lighting were an extraordinary 11 times higher.

“ESB statistics show the price customers are charged for a domestic supply connection differs substantially between urban and rural areas. “For rural areas, the average connection costs the ESB €2,000 while it is €900 in urban areas. However, only half of this is recouped from the rural customers. Thus the rural connection is 122% higher,” it sates.

While acknowledging that there has been no definitive survey carried out on the environmental, economic and social cost of dispersed once-off housing, the survey points out what it describes as the extra burden of cost that is shared by all taxpayers. …At a recent appearance at the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Eircom representatives said that part of the reason why fixed-line costs are so high in Ireland is because of the high number of once-off rural houses in Ireland.

Turning to the environmental costs, the paper argues that “one-off dwellings are not easily served by public transport and increased traffic from dispersed housing is inevitable. …..”

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Is this new, because my parents built a house with it's own well last year and didn't get any grant, the grant that was available was only for people who had water systems in place that needed to be replaced. We had to pay for the well being drilled and the pump.

They must have no SF representative in their area to chase it up( sorry couldnt resist )
Seriously though, they should have got the grant for a new water supply,lots of people in my area got it.
Iirc it was introduced after water charges were abolished to domestic houses on public schemes.
This is from the Wexford Co.Co site,I put the relevant bit in bold.

Individual Well Grants

A grant to provide a water supply is available to individual householders where there is no Council or Group Scheme supply in their area. This grant is used to provide a new source or repair a pump, etc.

An application form can be downloaded with relevant grant conditions.

4 Link to Application Form
Number of Applications received in 2002: 337
Total Number of Applications received to 31/12/2002: 3,182
Total Value of Grants issued to 31/12/2002: €2,511,826
Value of Grants issued in 2002: €489,932

linkie

ishmael whale wrote:

It’s also the way that people are inevitably committed to a car based lifestyle, which both cannot be served by public transport and reduces the potential demand for public transport.

Off the beaten track certainly,but if you look at the N11 near me anytime from 5 in the morning and again from 5 in the evening, the stream of cars is almost Los Angeles like in its proportions, and these are people largely living in serviced towns along the East coast commuting to work by car.Theres a reasonable public transport system.My local town has 16 Bus Éireann Bus's and several trains going to Dublin every day and still the roads are chockers.

mail delivery to rural housing was three times more expensive;
waste collection was two and a half times dearer;
phone and electricity connections were between two and five times more expensive;
footpath provision and public lighting were an extraordinary 11 times higher.“ESB statistics show the price customers are charged for a domestic supply connection differs substantially between urban and rural areas. “For rural areas, the average connection costs the ESB €2,000 while it is €900 in urban areas. However, only half of this is recouped from the rural customers. Thus the rural connection is 122% higher,” it sates.

All I can say about that as a rural dweller is "oh my God" it reads like an instruction to move into a town.
Surely though bar you disconnect the existing customers in rural areas and move them out, extra connections along the road arent costing the taxpayer much more given that the householder pays a hefty charge for the connection.The charge is the same if you are up to 1km from the line and is 100% of the cost if you are greater than 1km from the line.
I dont know how the average €2000 cost is calculated to be honest,but from anecdotal evidence, a lot of the houses I've seen are very close to a public line.
As regards the postman, he's traveling the road as it is, to the other houses,I suppose he has to get out of the van and enter another house alright, its hard to quantify that, or say its not necessary when the postal system stamp charges are not paying for the postal service as it is, by a long shot.
The ESB iirc on the other hand are making money.

While acknowledging that there has been no definitive survey carried out on the environmental, economic and social cost of dispersed once-off housing, the survey points out what it describes as the extra burden of cost that is shared by all taxpayers. …At a recent appearance at the Oireachtas Committee on Communications, Eircom representatives said that part of the reason why fixed-line costs are so high in Ireland is because of the high number of once-off rural houses in Ireland.

I'm not sure Ireland off line would agree with Eircom on that, they are a private company now and only interested in profit to be honest and they are making a tidy profit afaik whilst putting as little as possible comparably to other countries into the upgrade of the lines.

Turning to the environmental costs, the paper argues that “one-off dwellings are not easily served by public transport and increased traffic from dispersed housing is inevitable. …..”

I suppose it it, but as I pointed out earlier, my local N11 is like a mini LA highway as it is, and thats from urban living commuters mostly,I'd doubt if theres going to be an explosion in the one off housing suffecient to make that any worse environmentally given that the guidelines are not designed from my reading of them to promote several houses in every second field but rather make the possiblility of getting the planning easier for those working locally for the most part.
Afaik, there would still have to be 80mtrs visibility on an access to a house and that in itself would make planning difficult on many a winding road.

Just a few thoughts anyway-interesting discussion this.

ishmael whale

Earthman wrote:

... people largely living in serviced towns along the East coast commuting to work by car.Theres a reasonable public transport system.

True, but its possible to envisage a public transport solution in this case (and at least some of that traffic is a product both of unplanned development and of underdeveloped public transport). On the other hand, encourging the continuation of a dispersed settlement pattern simply adds to our problems for the future.

Earthman wrote:

... Surely though bar you disconnect the existing customers in rural areas and move them out, extra connections along the road arent costing the taxpayer much more given that the householder pays a hefty charge for the connection..

It would seem intuitively clear that providing services to dispersed once-off houses costs more, as you'd expect the unit costs to be higher, and those costs must be picked up somewhere in the system. I know nothing more about the ESB case than is mentioned in the article above. Maybe there are economies of scale if someone builds a house beside you, but that logic just brings us back to the idea that we should be encouraging concentration rather than dispersal of housing. Taking the particular case of An Post, rural deliveries were certainly a cost issue as the article below illustrates.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2003/05/25/story521922187.asp
“….One-off housing in rural areas accounts for up to one in three of all new houses built. This is now placing severe pressure on An Post's delivery services. …… "

Earthman wrote:

... I'd doubt if theres going to be an explosion in the one off housing...

The suggestion seems to be that, already, once-off housing comprises a significant share of total houses built, and the guidelines will only increase this trend.

ishmael whale

As I understand it, restrictions on building near main roads is a safety issue. Doing away with the local connection fig leaf would seem to remove even the pretence of planning. Is there any coherent way of interpreting MEP Harkin’s views?

“http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/0414/planning.html
Harkin responds to new housing guidelines
14 April 2005 11:53
Independent MEP Marian Harkin has welcomed 'the positive elements' of the new guidelines for rural housing. However, the MEP warned that some restrictions would discriminate against people seeking to build on land adjacent to national primary and secondary roads….. But she criticised the restriction of planning permission to people with a local connection…..”

http://www.irishtrucker.com/news/2005/february/2802053.asp
“The National Roads Authority (NRA) has warned Clare County Council that it will pull the plug on road development schemes in the county, if the local authority continues to grant planning permission for one-off houses along national routes…..“Inadequate control of road frontage developments adversely affects safety, leading to increased road accidents and casualty rates,” the NRA has told Clare County Council.”

Villain

Earthman wrote:

They must have no SF representative in their area to chase it up( sorry couldnt resist )
Seriously though, they should have got the grant for a new water supply,lots of people in my area got it.
Iirc it was introduced after water charges were abolished to domestic houses on public schemes.
This is from the Wexford Co.Co site,I put the relevant bit in bold.

linkie

LOL, nope theres no SF rep in my area, I might have to satnd one day

From http://www.carlow.ie/services/sanitation/forms/ExplanatoryMemorandum.doc

The 2.2 A person is not eligible for a grant if, in the opinion of the local authority, -

(d) the house concerned is under construction or has been constructed within the previous 7 years

irish1

irish1 wrote:

(d) the house concerned is under construction or has been constructed within the previous 7 years

They must have dug that one up from yes minister

Ah yes Sir Humphrey whats that you said about water supplies in Ireland??

"Well, it's clear that the committee has agreed that your new policy is a really excellent plan but in view of some of the doubts being expressed, may I propose that I recall that after careful consideration, the considered view of the committee was that while they considered that the proposal met with broad approval in principle, that some of the principles were sufficiently fundamental in principle and some of the considerations so complex and finely balanced in practice, that, in principle, it was proposed that the sensible and prudent practice would be to submit the proposal for more detailed consideration, laying stress on the essential continuity of the new proposal with existing principles, and the principle of the principle arguments which the proposal proposes and propounds for their approval, in principle.

That about sums it up Irish1...

bagocans

Boggle wrote:

Not everyone wants to live in a housing estate - and the over-restriction of planning permission is currently keepin buildable land at artificially high prices so I don't see the problem. Personally I would def prefer to live in a one off house than a housing estate...

This is the problem, we're not being offered alternatives, everything built in this country is either a bland estate, an ugly vulgar monstrosity in the countryside or a poky flat , the government needs to tackle this and get together with arcitects and planners to ensure builders provide imaginative alternative living conditions that encourage urban living or else new alternatives in the countryside to the blight of garish one offs.

oscarBravo

My house is not an ugly vulgar monstrosity.

bagocans

oscarBravo wrote:

My house is not an ugly vulgar monstrosity.

Most of them are. A story i read in the property section of the irish times described how the wife of a major irish buliding contractor broke into tears on seeing the house an Irish architects had built for the couple in Ibiza. It was only on realising what quality buildings an architect could design that she realised her husband had been building disgusting developments all over Ireland.
Most non-architecturally aware people aren't aware of the alternatives to our ugly housing and accept what we get as being of good quality, i don't mean that to sound snobbish but it's true.

ishmael whale

bagocans wrote:

Most non-architecturally aware people aren't aware of the alternatives to our ugly housing and accept what we get as being of good quality, i don't mean that to sound snobbish but it's true.

I think you have a point here – we don’t really have any appreciation of building design. I find myself when contemplating this issue that the ‘pink bungalow’ part of it doesn’t concern me. What does concern me is the way in which we are so casually sowing the seeds of our own demise.

Ed Walsh has put the point well in the article below. I’m not confident that his idea for inter-urban clustering is viable, and his concentration on Limerick/Galway to the exclusion of Cork seems a bit parochial. As is his comment “it can be designed to offer a superb quality of life, something that's not always possible in Dublin.” I’m not getting into a **** throwing competition, but people running Universities up the road from Moyross are hardly in the position to pretend that they’re the custodians of a beautiful cultural tradition denied to the pagan Dubs who are all really Brits anyway.

But at least he’s trying to deal with the key issue – We need centres of scale if we’ve any hope of keeping an arse in our trousers. The one-off housing agenda creates a problem that we just don’t need.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqid=4051-qqqx=1.asp

….. the old industrial policies that built Ireland's current prosperity and technological know-how can not be relied upon to sustain us in the decades ahead. Things are changing as the knowledge-driven economy takes hold.

Already regional centres are alarmed at the rate at which long-established, but labour-intensive manufacturing enterprise is closing up and moving abroad, unable to cope with Ireland's labour costs and burdensome emerging regulation.

There is also a recognition that, unlike the older-generation manufacturing plant that could locate almost anywhere in Ireland, most new knowledge-intensive enterprises seek the infrastructure of a large city.

It tends to gravitate to centres of scale that can offer sophisticated legal and financial services, a range of universities, advanced research laboratories, essential telecommunications and the essential range of air services.

Ireland's regional cities are small when compared with Dublin and have difficulty in competing to attract the most sophisticated knowledge-driven enterprise………The goal should be the creation of a counterpole of sufficient scale and sophistication that is as attractive to knowledge-driven enterprises, as Dublin is.”

Boggle

But at least he’s trying to deal with the key issue – We need centres of scale if we’ve any hope of keeping an arse in our trousers. The one-off housing agenda creates a problem that we just don’t need.

Who's WE paleface? What I dont need is to go into hok to buy a house that I consider to be only worth a fraction of the market price.

Like I was getting at earlier, if you make it easier to get planning permission then you lower the price of buildable land. In doing this you then lower the price of a home thus making it easier for someone like me, instead of buying a pre-fab box from some developer, to build the kind of home I would like.

If there are costs then pity but as far as I'm concerned everyone pays taxes and so are entitled to the same services...

ishmael whale

We is you and me and anyone else who decides this sorry island is where they’re likely to live out their lives.

There is a clear reality that people have to live somewhere. If we simply stop one-off housing and make no alternative provision, then indeed house prices will escalate even more. But one-off housing stores up a lot of cost for the future, so it simply doesn’t make sense to regard it as an alternative to planned development based on the major towns. This article by David McWilliams is unspectacular, but runs over the territory well enough for me not to need to reinvent the wheel on this point.

You’re contention that everyone pay tax and hence is entitled to services is too simplistic. The lion’s share of net tax take is raised in Dublin, and that’s what keeps the country going. Its hardly an accident that our only real city is the only part of the country that is truly a profit centre. (Cork also makes a significant contribution to national finances, but to a much lesser extent to Dublin.)

Areas of the country populated by once-off houses don’t pay for themselves. They are unsustainable in the sense that they need a profit centre elsewhere to subsidise them. And it really doesn’t need to be that way. Why should we arrange things so that nationally we end up paying through the nose for inadequate services? When we can predict, without rocket science, that we’re shooting ourselves in the foot, why do we have to pull the trigger and reload?

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/wholestory.aspx-qqqt=DAVID%20McWilliams-qqqs=commentandanalysis-qqqsectionid=3-qqqc=5.2.0.0-qqqn=1-qqqx=1.asp
“The main reasons for opposing this retrograde move are political, economic, and environmental or resource-based….. It's the same story with postal services as well as water, sewage, telecom and roads infrastructure. The more you spread the population, the higher the cost of providing all these services.
….. Looking forward, there is another argument for centralised, high density living, as opposed to a sporadic, scattered, one-off pattern - the price, supply and availability of oil. Ireland is one of the most oil-dependent countries in the world and suburban sprawl and one-off housing depend on cheap petrol.
However, we may have passed the period of cheap fuel. …….Like doling out sweets in response to pester power, the government's move is short-term, ill-conceived and will only do damage in the long run. When we suffer the economic equivalent of hardened arteries, liver failure and diabetes, just remember none of these ailments are one-off.”

Boggle

We is you and me and anyone else who decides this sorry island is where they’re likely to live out their lives.

Touche... forgot the smiley

An extension of your logic though is to remove the right to choose your own home and instead heard everyone into an assigned block of flats which is located at a central point. Personally I prefer the right to choose where I live.

article wrote:

Let us be very clear: if we have one-off housing, we cannot have a functioning public transport system, public health service, public education system or postal system, never mind universal access to broadband or cable.

Broadband and cable are private enterprises. If it is viable to provide cable to areas then they will do so.
Schools and hospitals already cater towards people in rural housing. Better there be 10 one off houses in an area than 1 as they'd have more efficient use of existing resources.
Postal system: If you have to deliver to the ass end of nowhere already then you might aswell have 10 other houses in the area. Worst come to worst, they only get post every 2nd day.
Sewage: Proper guidelines regarding septic tanks would sort this out. It's natural waste after all...

Basically what these arguments will boil down to is the value of a house. If it has amenities and good access to all resources then it will be valuable if not then it will be cheap. All your arguments boil down to that - the availability of broadband, postal services, public transport, etc. Basically if you got them handy you've a valuable home. If you don't then you've a less expensive home that may cater towards a certain demographic...

ishmael whale

Boggle wrote:

Personally I prefer the right to choose where I live.

Clearly all arguments can be taken to extremes in any direction. An absolute right to build a house anywhere would equally lead to problems. It’s a question of finding a balance. Given that a high proportion of new housing is once-off, what people like myself are saying is that the balance is skewed too much in that direction.

Boggle wrote:

Basically what these arguments will boil down to is the value of a house. If it has amenities and good access to all resources then it will be valuable if not then it will be cheap. All your arguments boil down to that - the availability of broadband, postal services, public transport, etc. Basically if you got them handy you've a valuable home. If you don't then you've a less expensive home that may cater towards a certain demographic...

I’m not sure that the sewage problems that come with once-off housing are solved that easily. The ‘house at the end of the valley’ argument – that once you’ve one house on a road, adding a few more makes little difference, equally crumbles a bit under scrutiny. One quick point to remember on this point is that one-off housing inevitably generates commuter traffic in towns, as that’s where these ersatz rural dwellers work. But as they live scattered about the countryside public transport is not an option.

Incidently, this also robs regional cities of the economies of scale they need for public transport etc. So you get the continuation of Dublin as the only place with necessary economies of scale to attract industry, which means more people come to work here, which improves the economies of scale even more, yada yada yada.

(Eamonn O’Cuiv used the ‘house at the end of the valley’ argument on Q&A recently. He attempted to maintain that the Dublin-Galway Bus Eireann service was an example of rural public transport until it was pointed out to him that it didn’t meander up every highway and byway.)

Even leaving all that aside, if people living in one-off housing were willing to accept that services in their areas would be poorer and if they paid development levies that reflected the economic costs they generate you might be able to justify a policy of just letting people live where they do. If I build a house in the middle of nowhere, and I find the ESB connection craps out for days at a time, then so long as I’m willing to put up with it what’s the bother? Except that’s not how it works out. You’ll recall that An Post tried bringing in a postbox scheme for rural areas. I don’t think it exactly got a warm reception, and I think you can expect the same reaction to any other suggestion that services to rural dwellers need to be curtailed on grounds of cost.

One-off housing is setting us up for a fall.

Boggle

Given that a high proportion of new housing is once-off, what people like myself are saying is that the balance is skewed too much in that direction.

Out of interest, what proportion of houses are currently one-off?

I’m not sure that the sewage problems that come with once-off housing are solved that easily.

Guidlines can and possibly should be imposed on the how sewerage is dealt with but I'd be surprised if this turned out to be a dealbreaker.

One quick point to remember on this point is that one-off housing inevitably generates commuter traffic in towns, as that’s where these ersatz rural dwellers work. But as they live scattered about the countryside public transport is not an option.

Public transport is currently not a feasable option in many parts of Dublin either as it spends so much time in traffic that extra buses are required to cover routes. Extra traffic, unless substantial would add little effect to many rural towns. In many stances there would be more cars coming out of my estate in the morning than would be added to an entire are with on-off housing. Now this being said there are always bottle knecks but as the country upgrades its infrastructure it should be looking to make the traffic flow more efficient and thus cater for most traffic situations.

Incidently, this also robs regional cities of the economies of scale they need for public transport etc. So you get the continuation of Dublin as the only place with necessary economies of scale to attract industry, which means more people come to work here, which improves the economies of scale even more, yada yada yada.

Those who want (and can afford) to live in towns will still do so. Again, why should someone live where they don't want to just to suit other people? As for needing public transport to generate investment, I think your a little misguided there. If companies required decent public transport they'd go to germany. What they are interested in is infrastructure - and people can live in town or around the town and that town still has it's catchment area which generates income to put those infrastructures in place. Incidentally, being forced to improve out infrastructure nationwide would also mean that the country would become more appealing to foreign investment.

ishmael whale

About 40% of new house building in Ireland is one-off.

On the general issues, its hard for me to avoid just saying the opposite of what you’re saying. I’ve posted up a few articles in this thread already that outline the very real problems that one-off housing creates. The article below from An Taisce is another good run around the topic (yes, I know many people think An Taisce are a collection of joyless anoraks, but the article is actually pretty good IMHO.)
http://www.antaisce.org/campaigns/antaisce_articles/One-off%20Housing_James%20Nix_i.doc

The picture I get is that dealing with waste is simply more difficult when you are dealing with one-off housing, and the chances of pollution much higher. To be honest, I think this is intuitively clear. Public transport is currently undeveloped in Dublin, but improvements have been made such as use of bus lanes to ensure public transport gets priority. It is much easier and cheaper to provide solutions with the economies of scale in the city. It is an utterly different situation to one-off housing where it will simply never be possible to devise a public transport system. Add to that additional costs in providing education, health and so forth and you inevitably come to the conclusion that we’re throwing away our future. And that’s not to mention the oil dependence/energy issue.
Why should someone live where they don't want to just to suit other people? As I said before, it’s a matter of where you draw the line. Extremes in either direction are to be avoided. There is a rural housing stock. No-one is suggesting knocking existing houses down, or saying that no-one can ever build a one-off. Its just that with the ratio running at 2 one-offs to 3 in estates we’re creating a social nightmare. Turning your question round, why should people endure considerable hardship in their daily lives so that someone else can live in an awkward location?

Your statement starting “If companies required decent public transport they'd go to germany..” is a little frightening. I can only remind you of Ed Walsh’s comments above. The world isn’t standing still, and the features that Ireland offered the world in the past just aren’t good enough for the future. The idea that Ireland will thrive when the world sees how many miles of country lane we’ve strung ourselves out over is pure hokum.

There truly is a problem we have to address, and Ed Walsh’s article linked above sets it out very well. Bear in mind, in the honest hope you might reconsider what you’re saying, I would be coming to this agenda from a very different perspective to Ed, but we are agreed on the essential problem. We need to concentrate our limited resources in a few locations if we want Ireland to be able to sustain a decent quality of life for its people. It really is as simple as that.

Tuars

Boggle wrote:

Personally I prefer the right to choose where I live.

You do not have the right to choose where you live. But even if you did, your choices are severely limited by the lack of opportunity you have to live in the place that you choose (e.g. due to the lack of employment opportunities).

One-off housing is a major contributing factor in limiting the choices we have of where we can live.

It's not an issue of validating and claiming rights rather it is about creating the opportunities that will give us real choices about where we can live. It is no use having the right to live somewhere if you cannot realistically exercise that right.

Tuars

Tuars wrote:

You do not have the right to choose where you live.

Well in fact you do depending on what county you live in and on the planning regulations.
you will find that your right to build in some cases is obstructed by the planning authorities in a manner that I would view as being godlike and unreasonable to the point of showing a straw clutching zealousness to lay down what they think is right
I know of one case where a lady was asked to provide grave numbers and the address of grave yards to prove her link with an area in which she wanted to build.
She met all the other reasonable planning guidelines.

But honestly the existance of family grave stones as a condition of planning- wtf like?

Tuars

Earthman wrote:

Well in fact you do depending on what county you live in and on the planning regulations.
you will find that your right to build in some cases is obstructed by the planning authorities in a manner that I would view as being godlike and unreasonable to the point of showing a straw clutching zealousness to lay down what they think is right
I know of one case where a lady was asked to provide grave numbers and the address of grave yards to prove her link with an area in which she wanted to build.
She met all the other reasonable planning guidelines.

But honestly the existance of family grave stones as a condition of planning- wtf like?

Agreed. The locals only policy is a load of nonsense and is probably a violation of EU law. The An Taisce article that ishmael whale references above makes the point that the locals only policy is probably a get-out clause for politicians to allow them to oppose one-off housing without risking the wrath of their electorate.

Having said that these arguments about locals only and pink haciendas are small time stuff, rearranging the deckchairs while the titanic sinks. The reason people are migrating to Dublin is not because of housing restrictions. It's because of the lack of jobs which in turn is due to the limited ability of settlements based on one-off housing to support growing populations.

I think my original point holds. You do not have a legal right to live where you please and even if you did it is useless without the means to realistically exercise it.

Tuars

Tuars wrote:

and even if you did it is useless without the means to realistically exercise it.

Thing is though, in most cases it's easier and less costly to live in a town or a built up area.
Take any town in Wexford for instance,you could get a house there from 150k (terraced) up to maybe 250k where as sites alone in that county are making 150k plus! Thats not including another 150 k plus to build the house furnish it and landscape it and it would be a relatively modest creation at that price.

So like,the people making those choices are going in with their eyes wide open in the knowledge of the extra cost of procuring their home in the country.
They've also obviously looked at their ability to fund the extra cost of living there in terms of trips to the shop and work etc etc and made their choice in the fullest of knowledge.
Not many would either have the resources to make that choice but those that do are entitled to in my view.

Of course where immediate family get sites from their parents, to build on, they dont have that cost, but I dont think within reason planning wise that should be begrudged either.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose,I just dont see the tidal wave of migration to the country and the bungalow blitz happening as most people in my experience anyway like to live in towns.
But I do see the justification for allowing within reason, people to live where they want to and can afford to live.

Tuars

Earthman wrote:

Not many would either have the resources to make that choice

This is a key point. We can look at all the one-off developments and say "well, they're losing out on this that and the other but they made their choice so let them off, it's a free country" and that's fine but what we don't see is all the people who didn't have that choice. And why don't we see them? Because they're all up in Dublin. And why's that? Because their own communities cannot support them because they are not built to support growth. These are the people who are largely forgotten in the debates about one-off housing.

Tuars

Tuars wrote:

Because their own communities cannot support them because they are not built to support growth. These are the people who are largely forgotten in the debates about one-off housing.

yes but against that,you have had generations who went further than the cities, they went abroad because our economy couldnt support them at all even in towns , thus haemoraging rural areas of people and communities.

Now they are coming back and with wads of cash, they too want the choice of where to live and many back in their original communities.
They are doing that with their eyes wide open to the costs and have made their decision.

Also,Many of these people you speak of, now live in houses that could be worth maybe twice or up to ten times in cases what people paid for them, ergo they have the resources to move down the country and build if they want to, most don't.

I was listening to an auctioneer on a local radio station who maintained, that the people who are selling their homes are by and large opting to repurchase in towns rather than build.
In some cases these are people who move to a town nearer to Dublin to shorten their commute and in others, they buy down the country to live in a mortgage free or low mortgage home mostly in towns.

I'm honestly not expecting a deluge,and don't expect the planners to shirk their responsibility to prevent a problem.
But under the previous regime, there were too many inconsistencies in my view and at least now theres a common blue print and a fairer interpretation of what is do able and what isn't.

oscarBravo

Tuars wrote:

...their own communities cannot support them because they are not built to support growth.

You've made that point a couple of times - can you elaborate on it? In what way can the communities not support growth?

Boggle

Ishmael, I'll reply to your post as soon as I get the opportunity to read it.

Before then...

Take any town in Wexford for instance,you could get a house there from 150k (terraced) up to maybe 250k where as sites alone in that county are making 150k plus! Thats not including another 150 k plus to build the house furnish it and landscape it and it would be a relatively modest creation at that price.

Your paying for the planning permission, not the land. Whats the price of un-buildable land??

I'm honestly not expecting a deluge,and don't expect the planners to shirk their responsibility to prevent a problem.

Planners and responsible don't belong in the same sentence. Look at the costs of a plot of land suitable for a small business and you'll understand.

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

You've made that point a couple of times - can you elaborate on it? In what way can the communities not support growth?

The low-density dispersal of population makes it uneconomical to locate industry in these communities. Despite all the building that's going on in rural areas their populations are static or falling while those of Dublin and surrounding counties continue to rise at a rapid rate.

oscarBravo

Tuars wrote:

The low-density dispersal of population makes it uneconomical to locate industry in these communities.

Says who? You? The IDA? MBNA?

Tuars wrote:

Despite all the building that's going on in rural areas their populations are static or falling while those of Dublin and surrounding counties continue to rise at a rapid rate.

Probably an unsustainable rate.

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

Says who? You? The IDA? MBNA?

The CSO.

oscarBravo wrote:

Probably an unsustainable rate.

Not according to the CSO: Regional Population Projections.

oscarBravo

Maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm seeing from CSO are projected population numbers by region. I don't see anything to suggest that Dublin can cope with a 56% population increase, or that the other regions are incapable of supporting industry.

I linked to an example of a successful industry in a small regional town, which you're trying to tell me is impossible. I remain puzzled as to the source of your assertion.

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm seeing from CSO are projected population numbers by region. I don't see anything to suggest that Dublin can cope with a 56% population increase, or that the other regions are incapable of supporting industry.

The statistics show a consistent trend over the last fifty years of migration from the regions to Dublin. That would suggest that Dublin is capable of attracting and retaining industry and that the regions are not.

oscarBravo wrote:

I linked to an example of a successful industry in a small regional town, which you're trying to tell me is impossible.

I didn't say impossible, I said it was very difficult, and that it was uneconomical and unsustainable without large government subsidies.

Carrick on Shannon has a population of about 3500. MBNA employs 1,100. The 2nd and 3rd biggest employers in Carrick on Shannon employ 80 and 75 people respectively.

oscarBravo

Tuars wrote:

The statistics show a consistent trend over the last fifty years of migration from the regions to Dublin. That would suggest that Dublin is capable of attracting and retaining industry and that the regions are not.

No, it suggests that Dublin has been capable of attracting and retaining industry over the past fifty years. The population projections are simple extrapolations, with no analysis of whether the city can cope with a 56% population increase.

Tuars wrote:

I didn't say impossible, I said it was very difficult, and that it was uneconomical and unsustainable without large government subsidies.

And I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you believe that to be the case. I'm not picking on you specifically. I'm targetting the prevalent mentality that assumes rural development is unsustainable without asking why, while also assuming urban development is sustainable without asking how.

Tuars wrote:

Carrick on Shannon has a population of about 3500. MBNA employs 1,100. The 2nd and 3rd biggest employers in Carrick on Shannon employ 80 and 75 people respectively.

Your point?

Calina

Tuars wrote:

The statistics show a consistent trend over the last fifty years of migration from the regions to Dublin. That would suggest that Dublin is capable of attracting and retaining industry and that the regions are not.

Not sure I agree to be honest with you. Over that time frame, there has also been a switch from labour intensive agricultural practice to non-labour intensive practices. All over the world, and through out history, such switches are accompanied by movement from rural to urban areas, and those urban areas haven't always (or even often) had replacement industrial jobs for the displaced ex-agricultural labourers.

Not only that, Dublin has really only been attracting industry on a large scale in the past 10-15 years, and I would contend that a reason it started attracting that industry is that some investment was made to attract that industry. An example of this (albeit a small one) would be the IFSC. Prior to the late eighties and more particularly, the early to mid nineties, I don't think things were that much better in Dublin than they were around the rest of the country.

In any case, I could be wrong here, but I wouldn't see the CSO figures as proof that Dublin is clearly industrially sustainable and the rest of the country is not. I see it as evidence to suggest planning on a national scale is lopsided at best. It's not sustainable for a country the size of Ireland have 1.5million people crammed into one small part of the island - this represents around 30% of the population. It puts a strain on natural resources, such as water supply and building land supply. Of course, the minute I say that, someone will pop up and say "well we could build up, for God's sake". Given the standards of building here, I wouldn't at all be happy about that, never mind the aesthetic arguments. Additionally, it concentrates political power in a small part of the country and I'm not entirely sure that it would be positive either.

About the only reason I've seen put forward for not investing in the regions is that it's not cost effective. I haven't seen any convincing supporting argument though. Lots of argument yes, but it all boils down to "it costs too much" which is rather circular.

As far as one-off housing is concerned, I'm not against it in principle. Of the figures cited by Ishmaele above, I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of that 40% in terms of type, distance from settlements, existing houses within a mile, whether it falls between existing housing and a settlement. I find it difficult to believe that 100% of the one off houses built in the last few years are built in unsustainably isolated areas. My experience of housing developments is that the infrastructure argument isn't holding purely because the infrastructure improvements required when big housing estates are put in along narrow country roads at the edges of towns and villages have not, in my limited experience, been done. They wouldn't be necessary if the mass of people put in there was lower.

ishmael whale

Calina wrote:

In any case, I could be wrong here, but I wouldn't see the CSO figures as proof that Dublin is clearly industrially sustainable and the rest of the country is not.

There’s a well established assessment coming from the Spatial Strategy research that Dublin offers scale, and the absence of that scale in any regional location is a problem when attracting industry. The importance of scale is not really that controversial. Ed Walsh’s article posted above says it better than I can, and probably with more credibility as I don’t think anyone questions his commitment to regional development.

Calina wrote:

I see it as evidence to suggest planning on a national scale is lopsided at best.

What you see is not the result of planning, it was an absence of planning. The lack of scale in any regional centre was identified as a problem as far back as the Buchanon report which advocated the establishment of some large centres throughout the country as a counterbalance to Dublin, and argued that without this Dublin would continue to grow by default. I’ll let Noel Dempsey take up the story:

http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/docs/ministers_speech.doc
“There was a groundswell against Buchanan’s proposals. Local interests were put first … by a range of people… politicians, the local media, the public … with disastrous consequences for the country as a whole and for the west and midlands in particular. The report was “shelved” – because people were so parochial in their outlook that they couldn’t bear what they saw as neighbouring towns benefiting at the expense of their own localities. Buchanan was an opportunity wasted.”

Calina wrote:

About the only reason I've seen put forward for not investing in the regions is that it's not cost effective.

Its not ‘not investing in the regions’, so much as concentrating investment in a few locations so that it makes a difference. There’s been plenty of regional investment. Every county on the Western seaboard has it’s own airport except Limerick. But they don’t achieve much because all they really succeed in doing is ensuring that no location can develop the necessary economies of scale to compete with Dublin.

Calina wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that 100% of the one off houses built in the last few years are built in unsustainably isolated areas.

I have no more detailed information that what I’ve posted – but if you find anything more detailed I’m interested in knowing it. But I wonder at your disbelief. Policy on this issue is not being driven by any concept of sustainability. You may or may not know that the National Roads Authority have been reduced to appealing Clare Co. Council planning decisions on one-off housing because they conflict with road safety standards.

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

No, it suggests that Dublin has been capable of attracting and retaining industry over the past fifty years. The population projections are simple extrapolations, with no analysis of whether the city can cope with a 56% population increase.

What has changed that will make tomorrow different to yesterday?

oscarBravo wrote:

And I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you believe that to be the case. I'm not picking on you specifically. I'm targetting the prevalent mentality that assumes rural development is unsustainable without asking why, while also assuming urban development is sustainable without asking how.

If you take the time to read this thread and the referenced articles you will see that a case has been made. I haven't seen a credible counter argument yet.

Calina wrote:

Not sure I agree to be honest with you.

I can see why you're not sure because you actually are agreeing with much of what I have said .

Tuars

Calina wrote:

About the only reason I've seen put forward for not investing in the regions is that it's not cost effective. I haven't seen any convincing supporting argument though. Lots of argument yes, but it all boils down to "it costs too much" which is rather circular.

The core point of the argument against one-off housing is that it contributes to the excessive cost.

Calina wrote:

My experience of housing developments is that the infrastructure argument isn't holding purely because the infrastructure improvements required when big housing estates are put in along narrow country roads at the edges of towns and villages have not, in my limited experience, been done. They wouldn't be necessary if the mass of people put in there was lower.

You're going a bit circular yourself here...

Calina

Tuars wrote:

I can see why you're not sure because you actually are agreeing with much of what I have said .

In broad terms, yeah, but not really your interpretation of the CSO figures regarding the population development of Dublin. Mind you, your earlier comments about the lack of choice of house types in housing developments was dead on.

**********************

I'll have to come back to this later.

Calina

Ishmael,

having analysed what you have to say, I think broadly, you and I agree, with some detail issues, of which one off housing is chief. At least, I think you and I agree that Dublin is not sustainable and I think you and I agree that to move people out of Dublin will require major investment. The impression I'm getting, however, is that you are against that investment which leads me to wonder what vision of sustainable development you have in mind for the country as a whole since from what I can see, all development is currently unsustainable.

One off housing is largely an issue in under-populated areas. Based on your argument to date, you want those areas to remain under populated, or possibly, not populated at all. Me, I'm against wholesale out and out building wherever you like. But I don't limit that view just to one off housing. Some housing estates in urban areas are gone up in places they really should not be going up in, such as flood plains for the river Liffey. On the other hand, I don't see that small settlements are well served by continually being added to by housing estates. In some cases - quite a few cases - one or two families might want to move into a settlement, and there might not be existing available accommodation. I see nothing wrong with building a one off house in or near a settlement, be it a village or a town, under those circumstances. I suspect most of the settlements concerned, with an eye on their school numbers, would agree.

As for the NRA and Clare - I have the following to say. Certain counties, of which Clare is one, have terrible roads which carry a hefty amount of non-local traffic at certain times of the year. Naturally I'm biased of course, but I rather feel that this issue is of greater importance on the safety front than the occasional house is. As an added point, the NRA's activity on safety is rather inglorious, if I mention central reservations and chicken wire and motorways. And that's not that long ago.

I don't have more detailed statistics than you do - as I've made clear. But I do understand that the blanket stat reported by An Taisce is a deceptively simplistic view of things purely because it covers all cases but the Nix report, particularly in debunking the house at the end of the valley argument clearly suggest that there are some acceptable forms of one off housing. Additionally, the house of at the end of the valley argument is, on occasion, actually valid.

@Tuars: once more with feeling: the infrastructure argument would be a lot more acceptable if it were put into practice. Unfortunately, thanks to no infrastructure improvements and two big housing estates built along a country lane with no public transport, I enjoy non-moving traffic at certain times of the day and power cuts and water cuts on occasion. I live six miles from Dublin City Centre. Put simply, you can argue that the unit cost per inhabitant for infrastructure enhancement is a lot lower with a higher density set up. But my experience is those higher density developments make infrastructure enhancements necessary rather sooner, and what's more, they aren't being done, leading to the gross cost going up anyway. Oh yeah, and the unit cost as well.

************

ishmael whale

I suppose the general angle that I’m coming from is that a significant factor in the failure of regional policy to date has been the misdirection of resources. A particular feature of that misdirection is the spreading of resources too thinly to make any real impact – as in all but one Western seaboard county having its own little airport. I don’t have a problem with investing in regional development, so long as there is a reasonable expectation that the investment will yield a return.

One-off housing posing particular problems for infrastructural development, which sometimes don’t seem to be taken account of by regional development campaigners. An example would be Marian Harkin’s simultaneous support for even more relaxation of planning rules and for the Western Rail Corridor. The two propositions simply don’t gel, as rail is only efficient if you are moving large amounts of people between large cities. This is at the heart of my problem with regional policy to date. Resources get used for projects that, ultimately, do nothing to stop the continued growth of Dublin – so the capital ends up with more people, but without the wherewithal to go with them.

I’d see the plan to scatter central government offices over 50 locations as more of the same failed policy. It will take a lot of money to implement and achieve nothing, as the decentralised centres will still lack the scale to compete with Dublin. If, on the other hand, it was decided to move the Garda training college from Templemore and integrate it with, say, UCC or UL, I’d see that as the kind of thing that could contribute to the emergence of a regional centre that could compete with Dublin to attract industry. Similarly, ending the Shannon stopover so that Cork might be able to attract a transaltlantic service would be a positive step.

Chiefly, what it has to do with is promoting a concentration within the regions. Otherwise Dublin will simply continue to grow as it has in the past.