Ireland 2040 plan "will kill rural Ireland"

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 2:17pm

BonnieSituation wrote: »

The thing is, not one person in "rural" Ireland has the gumption to realise what we're on about here.

I want small viable towns dotted around the country as do so many here and in this thread. But the insistence on ripping the heart out of these to ensure they have their road frontage and their big McMansion is mind blowing.

Subsidising small towns to thrive and survive is something larger cities have always done and something we would all like to continue especially for some from a quality of life and even an internal tourism aspect.

But you'd swear we put a fatwa on rural living given the lack of understanding in here.

As long as there is no disincentive to one off housing or an incentive to build in or beside a town then we've lost the battle. Critical mass is key. But it needs to be spelled out clearly that if you want a gaff miles from anyone for no good reason other than vanity then off you pop. But you're gonna pay for it.

The cities should not be involved in this argument at all. We're dragged into it and the issue really isn't our problem. This isn't urban v rural in the strict sense. This needs to be framed as rural town v rural country [sic]. And those people living in our dying smaller towns and villages need to be woken up and face the fact that their neighbours are killing their way of life with selfishness and vanity.

It's not Dublin, Cork or Limerick at fault we're keeping the lot on life support.

You are not entirely wrong but nor are you fully correct. Not everyone outside of Dublin wants or suggests that everyone should have a house in the middle of nowhere.

A lot in Rural locations have been paying much more for years for water supplies and sewage treatment than those in urban schemes but are being told here that they are being fully subsidised on everything. Most of the challenges against water charges came from urban locations. Rural are used to paying for them.

We have problems in both cities and rural towns and yet the solutions to those problems partially exist with the surplus of what the other has to hand. (I'm not suggesting it is easy to do so).
My position, is that several towns and cities in the country have empty houses, offices and shopfronts while their younger people have moved to bigger cities for work. That is not rural living pulling the heart out of those towns. But then I read suggestions that we should put 8000 more people in the north inner (inner) Dublin city.

Also, could we stop using the term McMansion, or are there bonus club points for it being used or something. It's about as true a statement as every apartment being referred to as a penthouse.

Finally, I wonder do all the owners of holiday homes dotted in most coastal towns around the country which they visit 4 times a year think that rural housing is the source of all problems.

Zebra3 · 15-02-2018 2:23pm

jmayo wrote: »

Remind me again how many cars are crawling through city centres today spewing out pollution and carbon ?
But I suppose you will claim they are all people from the country.

I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of posters on here who live in Dublin agree that there is far too many cars crawling around Dublin spewing out pollution. And most want improved public transport and cycling networks.

So I’ve no idea what your point is.

15-02-2018 3:19pm

LeinsterDub wrote: »

But you're unwilling to pay the actual value for the services you require to live here.

cgcsb wrote: »

Grand pay for it so.

I assume you are both very very strongly against all forms of social housing, given that it esentially means a free or subsidised to almsot nothing cost to fairly significant number of people.

Rural people do pay for their homes and while the actual building itself naturally costs less due to alreading owning the land or land costs being lower they do pay more to run the house in having water charges, paying to manage their own sewage, higher electricty costs, most likley BB costs will be higher also. Nobody in this country pays the "actual" cost for their services, that's not how a functioning society works and the sooner people raelise this and that they can't impose their way of living on other people the better.

blanch152 wrote: »

Grand, but don't expect postal services, a decent road, fibre broadband, homecare when you are old, hospital services within a reasonable distance, schools, shops and pubs in walking distance, a bank within 50km, or any of the other services that are best provided in bulk in cities.

As I have said before, feel free to live in a cave on top of a mountain if you want, nobody in a city has a problem with that. It is the expectation of comparable services that is rejected.

Postal services, roads, homecare, fibre BB and schools are required regardless as there is always a decent proportion of people who have to live rurally be they farmers, farm businesses or providing various different services to the area. So depopulating rural areas just makes the provision of these services more expensive. Also just so you know the road to our house was improved quite a few years ago with a significant proportion of the costs being coverd by the people living there. Aside from the surfacing all other works were also done by ourselves and the other locals such as making corners safer and widening some sections.

Its 5 mins drive to a thriving school which has been more than doubled in size with a massive extension in the last 5 years so I'm safe enough there.

25km from a city centre, 5km from a town (with a very busy bank branch) and 15km from a big county town. I think I'm safe enough there for both hospital and banking - not that I even need to go to the bank except on very very rare occasions.

I never said I wanted shops or pubs within walking disance, in fact I very much wouldn't want them.

pilly wrote: »

Given the whole subject of this thread is Ireland 2040 plan which will do away with the type of the house you're talking about I'm not sure of the point of your posts other than a hollow boast?

Due to having a farm at home I (and a lot of other people from rural areas) would always get "needs planning" even if (and its very big if) something was brought in to stop people from building in rural areas.

Zebra3 · 15-02-2018 3:28pm

Driving everywhere.

Without doubt the way forward.

cgcsb · 15-02-2018 3:35pm

jmayo wrote: »

Remind me again how many cars are crawling through city centres today spewing out pollution and carbon ?

Cars in Dublin are 3 or 4 weeks from being seriously curtailed. ASide from that Car usage in Central Dublin has fallen by over a third in 20 years. Car usage per person is low, and a lot lower than it is in rural areas, but you know that.

jmayo wrote: »

You see this is where you are dead wrong.
It is not politicians that want that, but the actual people themselves.

Young single people don't want to share semi-Ds with 4 other young single people in the burbs, they want small personal spaces in central locations. By forcing them into the semi-Ds the price of the family home goes higher.

cgcsb · 15-02-2018 3:43pm

Tell me how wrote: »

A lot in Rural locations have been paying much more for years for water supplies and sewage treatment than those in urban schemes but are being told here that they are being fully subsidised on everything.

Well that's just not true, one off houses have septic tanks, that's not paying for your sewage treatment, that's paying a small fraction of your sewage treatment. Septic tanks only provide primary treatment, the discharge is very low quality and pollutes the water table which the government has to clean up or get fined for or both. Septic tanks are supposed to be a 'better than nothing' option used where needs must. In Ireland we have 300,000 of them.

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 3:53pm

cgcsb wrote:

Well that's just not true, one off houses have septic tanks, that's not paying for your sewage treatment, that's paying a small fraction of your sewage treatment. Septic tanks only provide primary treatment, the discharge is very low quality and pollutes the water table which the government has to clean up or get fined for or both. Septic tanks are supposed to be a 'better than nothing' option used where needs must. In Ireland we have 300,000 of them.

Do you think it's better to have it flow directly into waterways and seas like it does from several urban schemes?

This idyllic view suggesting of city living to counter the reality is bemusing.

cgcsb · 15-02-2018 3:55pm

Luka Lemon Town wrote: »

I assume you are both very very strongly against all forms of social housing, given that it esentially means a free or subsidised to almsot nothing cost to fairly significant number of people.

Rural people do pay for their homes and while the actual building itself naturally costs less due to alreading owning the land or land costs being lower they do pay more to run the house in having water charges, paying to manage their own sewage, higher electricty costs, most likley BB costs will be higher also. Nobody in this country pays the "actual" cost for their services, that's not how a functioning society works and the sooner people raelise this and that they can't impose their way of living on other people the better.

No I'm of course supportive of social housing. It's not the subsidization of a service that I have problem with it's the bang for buck. A developer builds a scheme of 200 apartments on his site in Cork City Centre and hands 20 of them over to Cork City Council for social housing, they pay rent to Cork City Council and are provided with some maintenance in return. This is quite a small cost and the service is being provided to 20 households, all ontop of each other, who would otherwise be without a home. You have boasted about your wealth and your ability to comfortably build your own cathedral of capitalism in your field so the society has no interest in keeping you off the streets. Likewise the state is promoting social cohesion and integration by providing these homes to the less well off. There is no social benefit to subsidisng your one man ship in the middle of nowhere in fact it's a social negative given you'll be driving your, quite large I'm sure, vehicle to your nearest out of town retail park to buy frozen fare from a german retailer then come home home and pollute the water table with your untreated effluent.

cgcsb · 15-02-2018 4:01pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think it's better to have it flow directly into waterways and seas like it does from several urban schemes?

This idyllic view suggesting of city living to counter the reality is bemusing.

Urban schemes have primary, secondary and some have tertiary treatment and effluent is typically of high quality. There are occasionally spills, sometimes during storm events for example but many urban schemes now have overflow tanks to account for that and more overflow tanks are being built. Even after a spill from an urban scheme typically that water will have at least completed primary treatment and much of it's secondary treatment. So to answer your question, yes even if one takes into account the occasional overspill due to storms effluent from water treatment schemes is ALWAYS better than primary-only septic tanks.

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 4:06pm

cgcsb wrote:

Urban schemes have primary, secondary and some have tertiary treatment and effluent is typically of high quality. There are occasionally spills, sometimes during storm events for example but many urban schemes now have overflow tanks to account for that and more overflow tanks are being built. Even after a spill from an urban scheme typically that water will have at least completed primary treatment and much of it's secondary treatment. So to answer your question, yes even if one takes into account the occasional overspill due to storms effluent from water treatment schemes is ALWAYS better than primary-only septic tanks.

Once again, your being misleading in suggesting its only occasional. You should read the EPA report on it.

Of course, the solution is more money and thanks to abandonment of water charges, that might be slow in coming.

Of course perfectly operating public schemes should be better.
We don't have them.

cgcsb · 15-02-2018 4:17pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Once again, your being misleading in suggesting its only occasional. You should read the EPA report on it.

Of course, the solution is more money and thanks to abandonment of water charges, that might be slow in coming.

Of course perfectly operating public schemes should be better.
We don't have them.

Yes more money is needed and yes the urban schemes on the whole are always better than hundreds of thousands of unregulated septic tanks.

pilly · 15-02-2018 4:39pm

Luka Lemon Town wrote: »

I assume you are both very very strongly against all forms of social housing, given that it esentially means a free or subsidised to almsot nothing cost to fairly significant number of people.

Rural people do pay for their homes and while the actual building itself naturally costs less due to alreading owning the land or land costs being lower they do pay more to run the house in having water charges, paying to manage their own sewage, higher electricty costs, most likley BB costs will be higher also. Nobody in this country pays the "actual" cost for their services, that's not how a functioning society works and the sooner people raelise this and that they can't impose their way of living on other people the better.

Postal services, roads, homecare, fibre BB and schools are required regardless as there is always a decent proportion of people who have to live rurally be they farmers, farm businesses or providing various different services to the area. So depopulating rural areas just makes the provision of these services more expensive. Also just so you know the road to our house was improved quite a few years ago with a significant proportion of the costs being coverd by the people living there. Aside from the surfacing all other works were also done by ourselves and the other locals such as making corners safer and widening some sections.

Its 5 mins drive to a thriving school which has been more than doubled in size with a massive extension in the last 5 years so I'm safe enough there.

25km from a city centre, 5km from a town (with a very busy bank branch) and 15km from a big county town. I think I'm safe enough there for both hospital and banking - not that I even need to go to the bank except on very very rare occasions.

I never said I wanted shops or pubs within walking disance, in fact I very much wouldn't want them.

Due to having a farm at home I (and a lot of other people from rural areas) would always get "needs planning" even if (and its very big if) something was brought in to stop people from building in rural areas.

You don't "have" a farm, mammy and daddy do Nox.

jmayo · 15-02-2018 4:50pm

Zebra3 wrote: »

I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority of posters on here who live in Dublin agree that there is far too many cars crawling around Dublin spewing out pollution. And most want improved public transport and cycling networks.

So I’ve no idea what your point is.

My point is that a poster was trying to put it that all the car pollution and car emitted carbon was done to people living in rural areas when a huge chunk of it is down to people in urban areas, particularly when stuck in traffic.
But I would guess you could have got that inference anyway.

cgcsb wrote: »

Cars in Dublin are 3 or 4 weeks from being seriously curtailed. ASide from that Car usage in Central Dublin has fallen by over a third in 20 years. Car usage per person is low, and a lot lower than it is in rural areas, but you know that.

Central Dublin is only a small part of it in actual fact.
Of course you want everyone to live between the canals and down at the docks when we all know high density high rise living is nowhere near a reality in Ireland.

Try getting from say Blackrock to Blanchardstown or Leopardstown to Citywest.
Yep one can try public transport, but end up going through the city centre and it is a lot quicker and less hassel in a car.
There is no real cross city travel and hence most people would drive those routes.
BTW like it or not that is still Dublin, just not your definition of somewhere around the canals or docks.

cgcsb wrote: »

Young single people don't want to share semi-Ds with 4 other young single people in the burbs, they want small personal spaces in central locations. By forcing them into the semi-Ds the price of the family home goes higher.

Again you are totally ignoring the simple fact that apartment living in Ireland is not really suitable for growing families.
Young people get older and their priorities change.
Some of us old ones would also say they cop on a bit as well.

And what qualifies you to speak for all young people.

cgcsb wrote: »

Urban schemes have primary, secondary and some have tertiary treatment and effluent is typically of high quality. There are occasionally spills, sometimes during storm events for example but many urban schemes now have overflow tanks to account for that and more overflow tanks are being built. Even after a spill from an urban scheme typically that water will have at least completed primary treatment and much of it's secondary treatment. So to answer your question, yes even if one takes into account the occasional overspill due to storms effluent from water treatment schemes is ALWAYS better than primary-only septic tanks.

Jaysus listening to you one would think the countryside is flooded in shyte.
Modern domestic sewage treatment systems have come a long way from the concrete hole in the ground.
Yes there are old ones, but what about old sewage systems in our urban areas.

BTW what state is a huge chunk of the water and sewage system of central Dublin?
Wasn't some of it put down and designed during the Victorian era ?

bk · 15-02-2018 4:58pm

jmayo wrote: »

My point is that a poster was trying to put it that all the car pollution and car emitted carbon was done to people living in rural areas when a huge chunk of it is down to people in urban areas, particularly when stuck in traffic.
But I would guess you could have got that inference anyway.

Huh?! People in rural Ireland travel significantly further everyday then those living in urban Ireland and I can pull up the CEO stats if you need proof.

Lots of cars have auto shutoff systems or are hybrids, so don't pollute when stuck in traffic.

I actually live outside the canals and don't own a car. I mostly walk, cycle, the odd bus and very odd taxi. Not unusual at all for people in my neighbourhood. Pretty much anywhere inside the M50 and you don't need a car at all.

BTW interestingly rural Ireland has significantly worse air quality then urban Ireland, happy to pull up the stats for you if you need.

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 4:59pm

bk wrote:

BTW interestingly rural Ireland has significantly worse air quality then urban Ireland, happy to pull up the stats for you if you need.

Please do.

bk · 15-02-2018 5:01pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Please do.

Raw data here:
http://www.epa.ie/air/quality/

Mostly caused by the lack of smokey coal ban in rural areas, versus it banned in cities.

15-02-2018 5:02pm

cgcsb wrote: »

There is no social benefit to subsidisng your one man ship in the middle of nowhere in fact it's a social negative given you'll be driving your, quite large I'm sure, vehicle to your nearest out of town retail park to buy frozen fare from a german retailer then come home home and pollute the water table with your untreated effluent.

What about the social benefit of keeping families living beside each other and maintaining the community spirit in an area by having the next generation still living there. Not only is it desirable to have family live close to each other but there are also massive advantages such as the childcare provided, looking after elderly relatives etc etc.

Rural Ireland is such a great place because of the people that live there, take them away and you have nothing really.

As for septic tank pollution, the water in our area is excellent there is absolutely no pollution from septic tanks and we have a very high water table in our area so is a very good example to use also.

pilly wrote: »

You don't "have" a farm, mammy and daddy do Nox.

Not the most well though out response ever, where are you assuming the farm is going to "disappear" to?

bk · 15-02-2018 5:05pm

Luka Lemon Town wrote: »

What about the social benefit of keeping families living beside each other and maintaining the community spirit in an area by having the next generation still living there. Not only is it desirable to have family love close to each other but there are also massive advantages such as the childcare provided, looking after elderly relatives etc etc.

Rural Ireland is such a great place because of the people that live there, take them away and yiu having nothing really.

Any reason why all of that can't be done in a town or village setting?

Also you seem to have this idea that only young single people live in cities!!!

Lots and lots of generations of families living in cities, looking after young kids and elderly people.

You also ignored my earlier points about elderly people becoming socially isolated and trapped in their homes once they can no longer drive.

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 5:08pm

bk wrote:

Mostly caused by the lack of smokey coal ban in rural areas, versus it banned in cities.

You're reading the data incorrectly.

It applies a scale of 1-10, good to bad.
Most rural western areas fall into category 1, all other areas category 3.
Even in the west urban areas still are level 3.

John_Rambo · 15-02-2018 5:14pm

pilly wrote: »

You don't "have" a farm, mammy and daddy do Nox.

99% of Nox’s posts are irrelevant on this thread, in fact most seem to be boastful posts about his imaginary ostentatious house, the rest of his posts seem to be sneering and looking down at people the dwell in more modest homes that actually exist.

Either way, he's to inherit the family farm in Galway, so he’s a food producer with a connection to the land and therefore needs and should live rural.

pilly · 15-02-2018 5:16pm

Luka Lemon Town wrote: »

What about the social benefit of keeping families living beside each other and maintaining the community spirit in an area by having the next generation still living there. Not only is it desirable to have family love close to each other but there are also massive advantages such as the childcare provided, looking after elderly relatives etc etc.

Rural Ireland is such a great place because of the people that live there, take them away and yiu having nothing really.

As for septic tank pollution, the water in our area is excellent there is absolutely no pollution from septic tanks and we have a very high water table in our area so is a very good example to use also.

Not the most well though out response ever, where are you assuming the farm is going to "disappear" to?

Not making any assumption, just pointing out the fact that you're misrepresenting what you currently have as per in a pathetic effort to impress people. It amuses me really.

Idbatterim · 15-02-2018 5:24pm

lads this just goes around in circles! Providing services to people in towns or cities is obviously a hell of a lot cheaper and more sustainable than dispersed settlement!

bk · 15-02-2018 5:24pm

Tell me how wrote: »

You're reading the data incorrectly.

It applies a scale of 1-10, good to bad.
Most rural western areas fall into category 1, all other areas category 3.
Even in the west urban areas still are level 3.

You are looking at a current snapshot of the data. You need to dig into the raw data over time to get the results.

Here is some articles about the general trends:
https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/dublin-tops-air-quality-index-map-243502.html
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/extreme-air-pollution-in-ireland-caused-by-burning-of-solid-fuel-1.3262456

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 5:26pm

bk wrote:

You are looking at a current snapshot of the data. You need to dig into the raw data over time to get the results.

I read the data you presented....

15-02-2018 5:29pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

99% of Nox’s posts are irrelevant on this thread, in fact most seem to be boastful posts about his imaginary ostentatious house, the rest of his posts seem to be sneering and looking down at people the dwell in more modest homes that actually exist.

Either way, he's to inherit the family farm in Galway, so he’s a food producer with a connection to the land and therefore needs and should live rural.

If this is like some family farms I know, there will be some row if the brother inherits it. :pac::D

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 5:31pm

Agreed. But that doesn't mean some element of rural living is unreasonable.

Or else we just take the population of Ireland, put everyone into a space the size of Kildare and abandon the rest of the country.
It is achievable, population of country is smaller than London and Kildare is bigger than London's footprint.

pilly · 15-02-2018 5:32pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Agreed. But that doesn't mean some element of rural living is reasonable.

Or else we just take the population of Ireland, put everyone into a space the size of Kildare and abandon the rest of the country.
It is achievable, population of country is smaller than London and Kildare is bigger than London's footprint.

I don't see anyone suggesting that people shouldn't live rurally.

They're suggesting that one off houses scattered all over the country doesn't work, which it doesn't. Simple.

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 5:36pm

pilly wrote:

I don't see anyone suggesting that people shouldn't live rurally.

They're suggesting that one off houses scattered all over the country doesn't work, which it doesn't. Simple.

Obviously it's not that simple though is it Pilly.
Of course it is, if you agree with it. Like any argument.

pilly · 15-02-2018 5:38pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Obviously it's not that simple though is it Pilly.
Of course it is, if you agree with it. Like any argument.

It is simple. What's complicated about it?

Yes farmers need to live away from the local village or town. No-one else needs to, they just want to. And in the future they won't be allowed to.

Mick ah · 15-02-2018 5:41pm

John_Rambo wrote: »

pilly wrote: »

You don't "have" a farm, mammy and daddy do Nox.

99% of Nox’s posts are irrelevant on this thread, in fact most seem to be boastful posts about his imaginary ostentatious house, the rest of his posts seem to be sneering and looking down at people the dwell in more modest homes that actually exist.

Either way, he's to inherit the family farm in Galway, so he’s a food producer with a connection to the land and therefore needs and should live rural.

Full disclosure. I'm against one of houses (most of the time). I'm pro town/village/city. Whatever helps create communities and car dependency.

However you are right. If the man is actually going to farm then he should be allowed build on the land to facilitate doing business.

However, why not make it so that one has to build right beside your parents house, or else attach to it.
The object here is to facilitate individuals running a farm etc. Not to allow them to abuse local needs planning.

Electric Sheep · 15-02-2018 5:43pm

Topgear on Dave wrote: »

John_Rambo wrote: »

99% of Nox’s posts are irrelevant on this thread, in fact most seem to be boastful posts about his imaginary ostentatious house, the rest of his posts seem to be sneering and looking down at people the dwell in more modest homes that actually exist.

Either way, he's to inherit the family farm in Galway, so he’s a food producer with a connection to the land and therefore needs and should live rural.

If this is like some family farms I know, there will be some row if the brother inherits it. :pac::D

Better yet, the sister!

pilly · 15-02-2018 5:43pm

Mick ah wrote: »

Full disclosure. I'm against one of houses (most of the time). I'm pro town/village/city. Whatever helps create communities and car dependency.

However you are right. If the man is actually going to farm then he should be allowed build on the land to facilitate doing business.

However, why not make it so that one has to build right beside your parents house, or else attach to it.
The object here is to facilitate individuals running a farm etc. Not to allow them to abuse local needs planning.

It's a very good point, how many houses does it take to run a farm?

Sam Russell · 15-02-2018 5:48pm

Mick ah wrote: »

Full disclosure. I'm against one of houses (most of the time). I'm pro town/village/city. Whatever helps create communities and car dependency.

However you are right. If the man is actually going to farm then he should be allowed build on the land to facilitate doing business.

However, why not make it so that one has to build right beside your parents house, or else attach to it.
The object here is to facilitate individuals running a farm etc. Not to allow them to abuse local needs planning.

If the resale of the new dwelling was restricted for 25 years, say, or only with the permission of the planning authority, it would make 'valuable road frontage' and selling sites a thing of the past.

pilly · 15-02-2018 5:50pm

Sam Russell wrote:

If the resale of the new dwelling was restricted for 25 years, say, or only with the permission of the planning authority, it would make 'valuable road frontage' and selling sites a thing of the past.

I thought there already was rules around that no?

15-02-2018 5:52pm

This from Dev Jr.

http://connachttribune.ie/planning-framework-will-squeeze-life-rural-ireland-487/

Makes me think there is going to be something along the lines of restrictions on how far one off builds can be done outside of towns/villages.

What baffles me though, is this type of restriction would serve to grow rural towns and villages, not wipe them out

Sam Russell · 15-02-2018 5:55pm

pilly wrote: »

I thought there already was rules around that no?

Not that I am aware of - it would pose problems for dwellings that required mortgages because in the event of default, a forced sale would be impossible without first getting planning permission and the mortgage would not be backed properly.

Sam Russell · 15-02-2018 6:05pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This from Dev Jr.

http://connachttribune.ie/planning-framework-will-squeeze-life-rural-ireland-487/

Makes me think there is going to be something along the lines of restrictions on how far one off builds can be done outside of towns/villages.

What baffles me though, is this type of restriction would serve to grow rural towns and villages, not wipe them out

This whole debate is circling round a few definitions.

Rural Ireland: Is it the green field surrounding every village and town - the dreaded 'townlands' or is it the whole of Ireland outside the major cities and large towns? Or is it everywhere outside the Greater Dublin Area and its commuter belt?

Kill: Stopping 'ribbon development' and 'one off houses' will kill what exactly? A small pot of money for a few farmers with road frontage - or cause huge unaffordable burden on the state to provide uneconomic services up every boreen in the remotest areas of the countryside?

The 2040 plan: When we see it, will all become clear? Athlone - the capital of the Midlands - where are the Midlands - is that in rural Ireland?

I think this is all Humpty Dumpty territory - where words mean what I want them to mean.

pilly · 15-02-2018 6:07pm

Deleted User wrote: »

This from Dev Jr.

http://connachttribune.ie/planning-framework-will-squeeze-life-rural-ireland-487/

Makes me think there is going to be something along the lines of restrictions on how far one off builds can be done outside of towns/villages.

What baffles me though, is this type of restriction would serve to grow rural towns and villages, not wipe them out

Oh look, the fact that the second line in that article is about the GAA makes me disinclined to read any further.

Zebra3 · 15-02-2018 6:21pm

pilly wrote: »

Oh look, the fact that the second line in that article is about the GAA makes me disinclined to read any further.

You need to be in the GAA in case you end up in court. The gold plated reference. It must be protected at all costs.

Tell me how · 15-02-2018 6:37pm

pilly wrote:

Oh look, the fact that the second line in that article is about the GAA makes me disinclined to read any further.

That's right. Just read that which you agree with.

I don't think you understand not every debate has binary positions.

jmayo · 15-02-2018 6:38pm

bk wrote: »

Huh?! People in rural Ireland travel significantly further everyday then those living in urban Ireland and I can pull up the CEO stats if you need proof.

Lots of cars have auto shutoff systems or are hybrids, so don't pollute when stuck in traffic.

They travel further at a quicker pace, not crawling along in traffic.

And auto shutoff is only a new thing on newer cars and hybrids a fair few will argue are more a drain on the environment through their manufacturer.

bk wrote: »

I actually live outside the canals and don't own a car. I mostly walk, cycle, the odd bus and very odd taxi. Not unusual at all for people in my neighbourhood. Pretty much anywhere inside the M50 and you don't need a car at all.

BTW interestingly rural Ireland has significantly worse air quality then urban Ireland, happy to pull up the stats for you if you need.

So all those dirty old buses, all those cars crawling along in traffic are not contributing pollution to the environment in the cities ?

BTW I find it a bit incongruous that you are a mod of the commuting and transport forum when you don't commute to work or don't it appears use public transport.
Hell you are like that guy in charge of Dublin traffic system that just uses a bike. :rolleyes:

Oh and just because you are relatively near work that you can walk or cycle try living in say Stillorgan and working in Santry, Parkwest or Citywest.

John_Rambo wrote: »

99% of Nox’s posts are irrelevant on this thread, in fact most seem to be boastful posts about his imaginary ostentatious house, the rest of his posts seem to be sneering and looking down at people the dwell in more modest homes that actually exist.

Either way, he's to inherit the family farm in Galway, so he’s a food producer with a connection to the land and therefore needs and should live rural.

Ahh for fecks sake, why didn't you say he was from Galway.

pilly wrote: »

I don't see anyone suggesting that people shouldn't live rurally.

They're suggesting that one off houses scattered all over the country doesn't work, which it doesn't. Simple.

What is the difference between a one off house a km from a small village and a house in a small village ?
There will not be a Garda station, a post office, a bank, a hospital, a supermarket, no secondary school, no real bus service most likely.

Either way the people living in that small village are going to have to use cars to get anywhere like shopping, schools, work, etc.

People here just play it that they are very anti one off house when really if they are look at their arguments about travel, not enough sustainable numbers for services then they are anti anything not a big town or city.

Or else maybe they just don't like one off houses aesthetically ruining their visit to the countryside?

pilly wrote: »

It's a very good point, how many houses does it take to run a farm?

You try living away from a dairy farm or a sheep farm when calving and lambing is on.
Then come back to us and tell us how achievable it is.

Or do you suggest that the ones inheriting the farm should just turf out the parents or just share with them ?

AlmightyCushion · 15-02-2018 7:08pm

jmayo wrote: »

What is the difference between a one off house a km from a small village and a house in a small village ?
There will not be a Garda station, a post office, a bank, a hospital, a supermarket, no secondary school, no real bus service most likely.

Either way the people living in that small village are going to have to use cars to get anywhere like shopping, schools, work, etc.

People here just play it that they are very anti one off house when really if they are look at their arguments about travel, not enough sustainable numbers for services then they are anti anything not a big town or city.

Or else maybe they just don't like one off houses aesthetically ruining their visit to the countryside?

Lots of differences. They'll use the car less for one as they can just walk to the local shop, schools, work etc. Broadband is a lot easier and cheaper to provide to people living in a village or town than it is to people living along multiple different roads in one off houses leading into and out of said town or village. Electricity and water would probably be cheaper and easier to provide as well.

snotboogie · 15-02-2018 7:10pm

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This from Dev Jr.

http://connachttribune.ie/planning-framework-will-squeeze-life-rural-ireland-487/

Makes me think there is going to be something along the lines of restrictions on how far one off builds can be done outside of towns/villages.

What baffles me though, is this type of restriction would serve to grow rural towns and villages, not wipe them out

The idea is that if developers and individuals cannot build one off housing there will be greater demand in towns, which will lead to more housing in towns. The Galway light rail debate this week kind of highlights this, Galway doesn't have the density for light rail but is blighted by traffic. If there was greater density in Galway City there could be a light rail solution. Instead you have thousands commuting from outside the city and no solution available other than more raods.

pilly · 15-02-2018 7:30pm

jmayo wrote:

People here just play it that they are very anti one off house when really if they are look at their arguments about travel, not enough sustainable numbers for services then they are anti anything not a big town or city.

There's a huge difference. I live in a small village btw. I can walk to the shop, post office, pub, doctor, butcher's and indeed a primary school if I had kids. Granted there isn't a secondary school but there's a school bus.

The difference with one off houses is the provisions of the services they demand out to those same houses. Broadband, postal services, ambulance etc etc.

I'm not irresponsible enough to think in my old age that I can expect everything to come to me wherever I decide to live. That's why I choose to live in a village.

I've already said I've no argument with farmers living on a farm but we all know the vast majority of one off houses are not farms.

And yes I also do think the majority are eyesores

pilly · 15-02-2018 7:31pm

Tell me how wrote:

That's right. Just read that which you agree with.

Tell me how wrote:

I don't think you understand not every debate has binary positions.

Have you any answer to the question I've asked you or are you simply going to make smart remarks?

Harry Palmr · 15-02-2018 7:36pm

RTE news just now

Oh dear! How unfortunate that the link died from the place up in arms about being left out of an aspect of the new plan.

jmayo · 15-02-2018 7:36pm

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Lots of differences. They'll use the car less for one as they can just walk to the local shop, schools, work etc.

I know a school based in a village and a lot of the villagers actually drive their kids to it.

And the small villages will not have the numbers for a secondary school so transport.
Most of the shopping will be done in the nearest Lidl, Aldi, Tesco or Dunnes in the nearest large town so still driving.

Walk to work ????
So is every village going to get a factory. :eek:
Better tell that poster from earlier.

Seriously I don't know where some of you guys live or are from, but about the only thing people will walk to is the local pub.
And yes maybe the national school.

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Broadband is a lot easier and cheaper to provide to people living in a village or town than it is to people living along multiple different roads in one off houses leading into and out of said town or village. Electricity and water would probably be cheaper and easier to provide as well.

Granted wired broadband would be easier to supply.
And yes there would be less need for electricity lines, but then again lines will have to be maintained to give power to farms, etc.
Or will they be told they shouldn't have power ?

Also has anyone ever thought that by moving everyone into a village you are then pushing the cost of water and sewage provision onto the local council (the state, the taxpayers) and not the individual as is with one off housing ?

No for true cost benefits that some people want the only solution is everyone moves to a city, preferably the mecca of Ireland Dublin's inner city.

15-02-2018 7:37pm

bk wrote: »

Any reason why all of that can't be done in a town or village setting?

If people are orginally from the town it makes sense but if someone is from the country side and want to live beside family then they need to live in the country side, particulary if they are from a farm as it won't be moving anywhere and the fact they have land to build on means they can use this rather than have to buy a site.

Also and above all a lot of people simply dont want to live in a city, town or village. They want to live in country side location.

bk wrote: »

Also you seem to have this idea that only young single people live in cities!!!

Lots and lots of generations of families living in cities, looking after young kids and elderly people.

Of course lots and lots of generations of families live in cities I never said they didn't and I have no problem with it at all, I know that lots of people want to live in cities and of course anyone who wants to can.

My main issue and why I even started posting in this thread is the pretty crap attitude of a lot of ubran dwellers on this thread who have no respect whatsoever for people who want to live rurally and if they could they would pull them all out of their houses and heard them into towns and cities.

bk wrote: »

You also ignored my earlier points about elderly people becoming socially isolated and trapped in their homes once they can no longer drive.

This is why its good when familes cluster togeather, you don't have this issue. Of my elderly realitives who lived very old all drive into their mid 80's and one drove until 90. They never had any issue with being isolated and when they couldn't drive they lived close to family so had no problems getting help or moved in with family if they need extra care.

John_Rambo wrote: »

99% of Nox’s posts are irrelevant on this thread, in fact most seem to be boastful posts about his imaginary ostentatious house, the rest of his posts seem to be sneering and looking down at people the dwell in more modest homes that actually exist.

Either way, he's to inherit the family farm in Galway, so he’s a food producer with a connection to the land and therefore needs and should live rural.

Another one of your condesending nonsense filled posts directed at me, full of guess work and claimed "facts".

pilly wrote: »

It is simple. What's complicated about it?

Yes farmers need to live away from the local village or town. No-one else needs to, they just want to. And in the future they won't be allowed to.

Lots of other people do, families of farmers not involved in farming, people who provide services in rural areas, people who want to live rurally, yes these should be fully entitled to despite what some city dictators think.

pilly · 15-02-2018 7:47pm

Kye High Lacrosse wrote:

Lots of other people do, families of farmers not involved in farming, people who provide services in rural areas, people who want to live rurally, yes these should be fully entitled to despite what some city dictators think.

So they don't need to live there, they want to. That's the point I was making. Not sure what your argument is except everyone in the country should be allowed to do what they want?

You understand the concept of limited resources I presume?

jmayo · 15-02-2018 7:51pm

pilly wrote: »

There's a huge difference. I live in a small village btw. I can walk to the shop, post office, pub, doctor, butcher's and indeed a primary school if I had kids. Granted there isn't a secondary school but there's a school bus.

Actually it is not that small a village if you have a doctor, a butcher and still have a post office.
Probably not in the west of Ireland anyway.

How many pubs, that is the true measure ?

pilly wrote: »

The difference with one off houses is the provisions of the services they demand out to those same houses. Broadband, postal services, ambulance etc etc.

Ehh how is the ambulance going to get to you in the small village?
Why don't you just move to the nearest big town with the hospital and be done with it ?

And taking this to the nth degree shouldn't old people just move somewhere near a church and a graveyard ?

pilly wrote: »

I'm not irresponsible enough to think in my old age that I can expect everything to come to me wherever I decide to live. That's why I choose to live in a village.

I've already said I've no argument with farmers living on a farm but we all know the vast majority of one off houses are not farms.

And yes I also do think the majority are eyesores

It's really that last point isn't it ?

BTW you chose to live in a village, some people choose not to.
You think that only you should have a choice ?

Ireland 2040 plan "will kill rural Ireland"

Comments