Is An Taisce killing rural Ireland

kingkane · 03-12-2010 12:33PM

FF and proud wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with them people in an Taisce, I cant count on my hands how many times over the last year alone that people around me have been rejected planning permission. My nephew wanted to build a new house to raise his new family, the brother wanted to build an extra shed for the animals during the winter, and some of the neighbours wanted to make an extention to the side of their house.

But low and behold an Taisce come along try and veto against all our planning applications. Whats going on here and when did this organisation have the right to tell us people where to live. This just isnt on at all and sure its killing rural Ireland overall. What do an Taisce want exactly, is it to turn rural Ireland into a big theme park with no people around, just so they can feel better about their sunday drives around the backroads or something?

I shouldn't be surprised that you're FF and proud.

How about you quote us a planning number or two so that people can review the application and the submissions made on it? Let's face it with the number of one off houses built over the last 15 years in the 100,000s I can't see that An Taisce stopped much development.

An Taisce have no veto on planning, they make submissions just like everyone else and the planning authorities take notice based on the validity of the submission not who makes it.

I suspect that behind your claims are that your nephew wanted to build a new house to raise his new family in an area that you wouldn't get planning in a month of sundays, the brother wanted to build an extra shed for the animals during the winter (and he wanted to put a slurry pit behind the water table and next to a river), and some of the neighbours wanted to make an extention to the side of their house (to a house that they had previously said in the original planning application that they wouldn't ever extend as it would overlook some other neighbours house).

baalthor · 03-12-2010 01:36PM

medicman2009 wrote: »

The amount of empty newly built single house builds, built in rural areas = 0

There are lots of them here in Cavan so it's definitely not zero, many were built speculatively to be sold on by the builders. Maybe you don't see them in Sligo because they have stricter planning regulations ?

mikemac · 03-12-2010 01:40PM

There is a huge lack of consistency between areas

Next to impossible to get permission in Tipperary North, never mind if you owned the land for generations and there is a house already right across the road.
And then you have to prove local needs, I think that's the term

Swim across the Shannon to Clare and there are McMansions everywhere.

So where is the consistency?

Dyr · 03-12-2010 01:50PM

feelingstressed wrote: »

There is a huge lack of consistency between areas

Next to impossible to get permission in Tipperary North, never mind if you owned the land for generations and there is a house already right across the road.
And then you have to prove local needs, I think that's the term

Swim across the Shannon to Clare and there are McMansions everywhere.

So where is the consistency?

How could you own the land for generations? Are you immortal?

mikemac · 03-12-2010 01:51PM

Family owns the land so, don't be silly

topper75 · 03-12-2010 01:54PM

I dont' think East Clare is as easy going as you make out. Is it not designated as a special area or something? Aren't those McMansions built quite a while back?

markpb · 03-12-2010 01:56PM

feelingstressed wrote: »

There is a huge lack of consistency between areas

What's the problem - they're governed by different local authorities who can each have their own rules.

starbelgrade · 03-12-2010 02:01PM

baalthor wrote: »

There are lots of them here in Cavan so it's definitely not zero, many were built speculatively to be sold on by the builders. Maybe you don't see them in Sligo because they have stricter planning regulations ?

The planning regulations for every county are the same. What differs from council to council are the area Development Plans. These are drafted up every 5 years or so & set out what areas are to be zoned for which types of developments.

They're basically a blueprint for what you can apply for planning permission for & where.

Everyone can make submissions to the plans, but most people don't, mainly because they don't know about them.

feelingstressed wrote: »

There is a huge lack of consistency between areas

Next to impossible to get permission in Tipperary North, never mind if you owned the land for generations and there is a house already right across the road.
And then you have to prove local needs, I think that's the term

Swim across the Shannon to Clare and there are McMansions everywhere.

So where is the consistency?

As I posted above, the Development Plans differ from council to council.

There is also National Strategic Development Plan which tries to balance the regional ones, however, even with all the development plans in place, what has happened over the years is that people "lean on" their local councillors to get planning applications pushed through, against the greater benefit of everyone else.

sensibleken · 03-12-2010 02:06PM

You think An Taisce is bad wait untill Unicron gets here!

oppenheimer1 · 03-12-2010 02:18PM

FF and proud wrote: »

What exactly is wrong with them people in an Taisce, I cant count on my hands how many times over the last year alone that people around me have been rejected planning permission. My nephew wanted to build a new house to raise his new family, the brother wanted to build an extra shed for the animals during the winter, and some of the neighbours wanted to make an extention to the side of their house.

But low and behold an Taisce come along try and veto against all our planning applications. Whats going on here and when did this organisation have the right to tell us people where to live. This just isnt on at all and sure its killing rural Ireland overall. What do an Taisce want exactly, is it to turn rural Ireland into a big theme park with no people around, just so they can feel better about their sunday drives around the backroads or something?

Kudos to the troll for managing to wind everyone up. I would have thought with an name like FF and proud it was fairly obvious. Anyway I'd like to pick a few holes in his story. Agricultural buildings for housing animals are generally exempt, unless they are massive. Houses can be extended by up to 40m2 as long as no alterations are made to the front without planning also.

As rightly pointed out its an bord planaela or the local council that stops development not an Taisce. The raise concerns but if these concerns are groundless they will be ignored.

During the height of the building frenzy I believe 70,000 houses a year were being built as one offs, ie a large town was being constructed in rural Ireland without provision of infrastructure. Whats worse is people in these houses expect local bus services, sanitation and high speed broadband, which the more thinly spread the population the more expeensive it becomes. Is it any wonder we have the most expensive phone line rental in Europe?

starbelgrade · 03-12-2010 02:32PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Anyway I'd like to pick a few holes in his story. Agricultural buildings for housing animals are generally exempt, unless they are massive. Houses can be extended by up to 20m2 as long as no alterations are made to the front without planning also.

I hate to be anal, but there are a few holes that I can pick in your story;

Houses can be extended by up to 40sq.m, not 20sq.m (provided they comply with other certain conditions).

Some agricultural buildings are exempt, but not to the massive scale that you have implied - very roughly speaking, any building that brings the total footprint of all the buildings on a farm to over 200-300 sq.m requires planning, unless it is a store, which can be up to 300 sq.m (provided they comply with other certain conditions).

These exemptions are to allow the building of very small scale agricultural buildings, not "massive" ones.

henryporter · 03-12-2010 02:38PM

Interesting discussion, and taken relatively seriously for an After Hours debate. My own opinion is that the 300,000 houses that keep getting mentioned here as a substitute to building on one off rural housing are fraught with as many problems - inadequate infrastructure (I'm talking schools, creches, shops, swimming pools and the like here), as most major developments were not required to provide any of these (I know there are exceptions, but not many) or if they were required to do so as a condition of planning some deal was struck somewhere to offer the least developable piece of the site to a third party who would construct the infrastructure.

There has been a huge culture of accepting sub-standard design and construction in this country since the greed, sorry, Celtic Tiger took hold. It is the Government in the first instance who shoulder the blame for this because it was their legislation and the lack of any real enforcement that allowed these estates to be built in complete deference to their own National Spatial Plan.

I'm totally against one off housing in the countryside for anyone not working there, however shoving everyone else into these poorly thought out, poorly constructed and poorly serviced ghettos of the present and future isn't the answer either.

Instead of getting an Taisce to bulldoze the housing estates, why not put Bertie, and Brian Clown and Charlie McGreedy and the rest of that shower of brown envelope pocketeers in chains with sledgehammers and put them to an honest days work for the next ten years to pay for the absolute mess they have made of this country?

Did I mention OP you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself for supporting the scumbags whose legacy has been to load every person in this country with debt beyond comprehension.

danbohan · 03-12-2010 02:40PM

John_Rambo wrote: »

I think some parts of rural Ireland needs to cop on.

The celtic tiger is over.

Less of the hideous one off piles and back to basics like close knit communities, looking out for each other instead of keeping up with the Jones, kids being able to walk to each others houses, buying affordable cars in stead of massive jeeps and not being able to afford the tax and tyres, dropping in to each other instead of jealously driving by, having neighbours instead of strangers up the road.

The celtic tiger had a massive impact on rural Ireland. Much bigger than the cities and to be honest, it's left a cold unwelcoming feeling.

The celtic tiger had a massive impact on rural Ireland. Much bigger than the cities and to be honest, it's left a cold unwelcoming feeling.

yes it did , especially where urban dwellers , dubs usually went to live in rural areas and then complain of farming smells .

FF and proud · 03-12-2010 02:42PM

sensibleken wrote: »

You think An Taisce is bad wait untill Unicron gets here!

Who or what are Unicron?

starbelgrade · 03-12-2010 02:44PM

FF and proud wrote: »

Who or what are Unicron?

Unicron is a Transformer, as far as I know.

danbohan · 03-12-2010 02:45PM

Bambi wrote: »

How could you own the land for generations? Are you immortal?

yes family history and land ownership is something that most dubliners dont understand , sort think on it as if your family had same council supplied house for several generations .

wild_cat · 03-12-2010 02:59PM

I grew up in a very rural area, my parents are farmers and have watched the land surrounding theirs spoiled due to the boom with manky two stories houses some of which are still vacant.

We're all being left sites but where they are located are completely down to my parents as they want to make sure we don't further ruin the beauty of our area. The farmhouse (built pre famine) is in a hollow and our neighbours sons built three houses on the top of the hill completely ruining our view, clearing trees and hedge rows in the process, I'm talking cribs style houses with only three/four people living in them. Infairness though I probaly wouldn't complain if they looked like something out of grand designs, but they don't. they're big concrete boxes, disgusting things.

Why didnt we object? You don't want to piss off your neighbours do you? So we just put up with it, had it been a blow in things might have been completely different.

All and all I have no problem with people building as long as its not completely taking over the area with manky design choices and sustainable buildings are built to specifications that don't hinder the life of the country side.

Some one was saying earlier about urbanites moving down and then leaving because of the smell of farms... haha We had one family like that on the road they got so bored down there they moved back to Tallaght, they couldn't get over how people lived five miles from the nearest shop and were ok with it.

ScumLord · 03-12-2010 03:08PM

wild_cat wrote: »

We're all being left sites

Sites, lol. Translation= that bit of the field. I love how bit's of worthless fields became "sites" and are now back to their real value. Worthless.

but where they are located are completely down to my parents as they want to make sure we don't further ruin the beauty of our area. The farmhouse (built pre famine) is in a hollow and our neighbours sons built three houses on the top of the hill completely ruining our view, clearing trees and hedge rows in the process, I'm talking cribs style houses with only three/four people living in them. Infairness though I probaly wouldn't complain if they looked like something out of grand designs, but they don't. they're big concrete boxes, disgusting things.

There's plenty of those big mansion boxes around my way too. Literally a box cottage on steroids. People were mad building them and now they're stuck with these huge houses (I have a friend who built a 5 bedroom house for just himself, he lives alone) with huge power and heating bills and no way to pay for them now. What's even better I mean worse is their big mansion is completely worthless because it's in a terrible location that only someone that wants to live next door to their mammy would want to live. The house is completely unsellable.

mikemac · 03-12-2010 03:11PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Sites, lol. Translation= that bit of the field. I love how bit's of worthless fields became "sites" and are now back to their real value. Worthless.

How is agricultural land worthless? Do you know any going for free?
If so, snap it up and then sell it. You'll do very well if you get 5k an acre. Probably won't get near that though

Even a bog is worth money

ScumLord · 03-12-2010 03:13PM

feelingstressed wrote: »

How is agricultural land worthless? Do you know any going for free?
If so, snap it up and then sell it. You'll do very well if you get 5k an acre. Probably won't get near that though

Even a bog is worth money

It's only worth money if someone wants to buy it.

wild_cat · 03-12-2010 03:13PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Sites, lol. Translation= that bit of the field. I love how bit's of worthless fields became "sites" and are now back to their real value. Worthless.

I think mine will still be a piece of agricultural land well after I'm dead. There's nothing for me down there.

ScumLord · 03-12-2010 03:29PM

wild_cat wrote: »

I think mine will still be a piece of agricultural land well after I'm dead. There's nothing for me down there.

It would make much more sense for the children to run the farm as a co-op. Dividing up the land between siblings just isn't sustainable. Let the kids run the farm together. If one enjoys farming let him do that, if someone else is in the city they can do accounts. Keep it as a going concern instead of dividing up the spoils.

bnt · 03-12-2010 05:42PM

Don't know why the OP is blaming An Taisce for everything: they don't necessarily choose to get involved. They are a "prescribed body" under the Planning & Development Regulations (2001), and local authorities are obliged to involve them when a plan ticks certain boxes defined in Article 28 (listed here).

If the issue is "heritage", it might involve the Heritage Council:

The Heritage Council seeks to protect and enhance the richness, quality and diversity of our national heritage for everyone. It works with its partners, particularly at local level, to increase awareness of Ireland’s national heritage and to highlight its importance to public policy and everyday life.

The latter has just released a document, Proposals for Ireland's Landscape. I'd recommend folks have a read of that if they want a "big picture" overview. If anyone's wondering whether Europe is involved here: see European Landscape Convention. :cool:

John_Rambo · 03-12-2010 08:47PM

danbohan wrote: »

land ownership is something that most dubliners dont understand

There is council housing all over the country. Some city houses are handed down generations, but most City dwellers work hard for their houses and apartments. We don't just get born in to land and free sites. To think have some sort of entitlement to build cause your parents hand you the land is ludicrous and childish.

danbohan wrote: »

urban dwellers , dubs usually went to live in rural areas

Well members of your community sold the land to them and stuffed the cash in their pockets, so their greed is part of the problem if you don't like where your neighbours are from, be it Dublin, Cork, China or wherever. Anyway, stupid post to be honest, cause you and I know the majority of the pretentious mansions are locals trying to outdo each other built on land handed to them by their folks. I see it all over the country.

Again, we need communities where people look out for each other, not McMansions dotted all over the place.

03-12-2010 09:01PM

ScumLord wrote: »

Sites, lol. Translation= that bit of the field. I love how bit's of worthless fields became "sites" and are now back to their real value. Worthless.

There's plenty of those big mansion boxes around my way too. Literally a box cottage on steroids. People were mad building them and now they're stuck with these huge houses (I have a friend who built a 5 bedroom house for just himself, he lives alone) with huge power and heating bills and no way to pay for them now. What's even better I mean worse is their big mansion is completely worthless because it's in a terrible location that only someone that wants to live next door to their mammy would want to live. The house is completely unsellable.

This sums up all that's wrong with one-off building in recent years, oversized houses built for the sake of it. Sites sold everywhere to anyone who wants to throw up a house to sell on in the most remote and poorly serviced places in the country. I live near Athlone so it's not that remote, around here there are few empty houses (ignoring those abandoned in previous migrations) but of the ones occupied, I expect that when the present occupants move on (or die) many of them will remain empty.

Why? Peak oil and all it's affects on the abilities to commute to work any significant distances, in other words, unless you are in a well paid job, commuting to Dublin from here will soon be too expensive for many.

FF and proud · 12-12-2010 01:39AM

Deleted User wrote: »

This sums up all that's wrong with one-off building in recent years, oversized houses built for the sake of it. Sites sold everywhere to anyone who wants to throw up a house to sell on in the most remote and poorly serviced places in the country. I live near Athlone so it's not that remote, around here there are few empty houses (ignoring those abandoned in previous migrations) but of the ones occupied, I expect that when the present occupants move on (or die) many of them will remain empty.

Why? Peak oil and all it's affects on the abilities to commute to work any significant distances, in other words, unless you are in a well paid job, commuting to Dublin from here will soon be too expensive for many.

Peak oil, sure what about them people working on solar power?

Saila · 12-12-2010 01:44AM

McMansions ftw! [on aesthetics]

12-12-2010 02:36AM

FF and proud wrote: »

Peak oil, sure what about them people working on solar power?

Well, if you can develop a solar powered system that can replace all the energy supplied by fossil fuel, then the world will beat a path to your door!

It just isn't going to happen!

Amhran Nua · 12-12-2010 01:27PM

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

During the height of the building frenzy I believe 70,000 houses a year were being built as one offs

You believe wrongly, there were around that many houses being built, but a small percentage of those would have been one off housing. The majority would have been urban-style estates, including the "ghost estates".

There have been questions raised over the role played by An Taisce previously, for example:

A Meath councillor has called for the An Taisce organisation to be "stood down" pending an inquiry into its affairs after it was disclosed that it had accepted sizeable corporate donations, including a €5,000 contribution to its funds from the Indaver waste management company, which is building an incinerator at Carranstown, Duleek.

Independent councillor Brian Fitzgerald said there should be an inquiry to determine whether there is a conflict of interest among any of its members or advisors. It was disclosed in the organisation's annual report that it had received a "very welcome" grant of €25,000 from the Tesco supermarket chain. In one of its newsletters, it also acknowledged a "generous" €5,000 from Indaver.

The newsletter said: "This month saw a generous €5,000 donation come in from Indaver. An Taisce's history with Indaver has been colourful in the past and though we are sure that there will be more colour in our collective future, we see that this donation is a purely altruistic gesture and we thank Indaver for their support. The money will be put to good use!"

An Taisce responded to Cllr Fitzgerald by saying that An Taisce, the National Trust for Ireland, was a charity. In common with many charities and non-profit organisations, it actively petitioned the corporate world for support, it said. It denied that any donation had ever been used to influence any decision within the planning department for An Taisce.

Cllr Fitzgerald said that serious issues were raised by the delivery of corporate donations to An Taisce. He said the possibility arose that there might be a conflict of interest for An Taisce if it accepted corporate donations. "It is a prescribed body with special status under the planning laws. It also receives Government funding and it is notified of development plans and local area plans (LAPS)," he said.

And more

A SUGGESTION OF possible corruption in An Bord Pleanála has been made in the Dáil by a Fine Gael TD. Kerry South deputy Tom Sheahan questioned the logic of members of the board rejecting an inspector's report to either recommend or refuse planning permission when they themselves "have not visited the site".
"Some people say to me - but I would not be that narrow-minded - that maybe there are members of the board who are taking money. Perhaps there are members of An Bord Pleanála who are taking money because they have never visited the site". Mr Sheahan also hit out at what he called "serial objectors", who he believed should have to pay €200, rather than €20 to object to a planning application. He said he knew of one such objector who "took €25,000 in cash to withdraw an objection to planning permission for two family members on a holding". And he claimed "a lot of these people are aligned and associated with An Taisce and the Green Party".

Even their own members have publicly called for investigations in the past:

The former chairman of An Taisce, Mr Michael Smith, has called for an explanation of how the impression was given out that the organisation was in financial crisis.
Calling on An Taisce to launch an internal investigation, he said Price Waterhouse Cooper's audited accounts showed an accurate and truthful position for 2003, the year he was chairman, which was financially positive.
Mr Smith welcomed the current direction of the organisation under its new leadership, but called for an inquiry into how a perception of financial crisis was allowed to develop earlier in 2004.

Going back to 1970...

Mr. Haughey: The grant referred to is in respect of a special survey being carried out by the body in question at my request. I undertook to bear the expenses of the survey and I accordingly propose to pay instalments of the grant as they fall due.

As the body in question is a company limited by guarantee, any action arising from the auditors' report is a matter between the members of the body in question and its council.

Mr. Dowling: Would the Minister agree that since this body, An Taisce, cannot account satisfactorily for the income they received last year, it would be unwise to pay them the £5,000 already provided in the Supplementary Estimate this year to carry out a survey of the great houses and gardens of Ireland?

Then we have their objections to such vital infrastructural projects as the Galway outer bypass, when the city is being throttled by traffic its medieval streets cannot sustain, taking up to two hours to get from east to west during rush hour.

Can't have by-pass and public transport system
Wednesday, 14 October 2009
Dear Editor,
In the light of the financial crisis that faces this country, it is hard to see just how the High Court decision to throw out the environmental concerns many people have over the construction of a €340 million by-pass of Galway city will allay those genuine concerns and lead to its construction.

This proposed road simply will never be built. It makes no environmental sense to destroy our protected landscapes, neither does it make economic sense to put the construction of such an environmentally damaging road ahead of spending money on decent public transport alternatives, which are now being used as an alternative to building more roads in many other European cities.

The proposal for a by-pass of Galway first appeared over 20 years ago, as soon as it was realised that the current by-pass and bridge crossing at Terryland was going to be unable to deal with the unsustainable growth of car traffic. The current delay and costs of over €12 million due to planning, CPO processes and environmental concerns has become a cause celebre for the pro-development lobby led by Frank Fahey TD.

The use of the humble, but protected, bog cotton has replicated the outcry over the snail in the delays experienced in building the Kildare by-pass (N7) in 2004. FF Senator Martin Mansergh, in 2004, made the following statement to the Irish Times during the debate over that road, "There was the ridiculous delay to the N7 bypass at Kildare because of a supposedly threatened species of snail. I am deeply suspicious of an expertise that cannot be verified. Common sense and experience tells us that snails are virtually ineradicable and the miniscule risk of a marginal change in the biodiversity of this particular species is surely a tolerable one."

For Senator Mansergh then in Kildare, and Frank Fahey now in Galway, to suggest that a small snail, or in our case bog cotton, and it alone were the reason for environmentalists objections is an attempt to trivialise the issue and to ridicule the views of those opposed to the plans in an effort to gain public support for the road as originally designed.

As independent transport campaigner, Brian Guckian has said, "You simply cannot have both an outer by-pass and a fully functioning public transport system in Galway" since the money for both is simply not there. If you get the road, you will never see public transport improvements in Galway and we will be consigned to seeing traffic gridlock in Galway continue for decades to come.

Yours faithfully,
Derrick Hambleton,
Chairman,
An Taisce – Galway Association, Kingston, Galway

As for the snails, in for example Kildare they were sorted out by building a plastic trough which allowed them to move underneath the road, set up at a cost of two years and twenty five million euros, resulting in Kildare town being rejuvenated since the heavy traffic was redirected, although the snails didn't fare too well as the wet summers caused a backup in the system and flooded it.

An Taisce is not just a private charity, it is built into the Planning legislation as a body that has to be consulted, and An Taisce can lodge objections to planning applications without paying the fee that citizens have to pay. I do appreciate that there are people in the group who genuinely want to look after Ireland's history and landscapes, but there are apparently a decent lump of angry nuts who just want to derail any and every planning application.

What we need is an independent government funded body that will investigate planning objections in a streamlined fashion, regulated to ensure its independence is not threatened.

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, if you can develop a solar powered system that can replace all the energy supplied by fossil fuel, then the world will beat a path to your door!

It just isn't going to happen!

Eh weren't there plans to link the Sahara to Europe via HVDC lines, the European supergrid? Apparently you could handle the world's energy requirements by covering less than five percent of the Sahara. I'm not saying its economical at the minute given the prior investment in fossil fuel infrastructure, but if fossil fuel prices rise high enough it will certainly become affordable.

Birdnuts · 12-12-2010 02:02PM

The problem here is that unlike countries such as the UK and France, the Irish do not value their rural landscape which is dumb since its the bedrock of our tourist industry and clean food image. Gombeen planning has now destroyed vast areas which are now littered with empty bungalows and obscene Mcmansions. Who gained from this?? - FF and proud sounds like the kind of person who could help us in that regard;)

PS:Indeed i find the title of this thread hilarious given that Ireland probably has the most lax rural planning regime in the Western World not to mention our poor record on many heritage/environmental issues!!

Is An Taisce killing rural Ireland

Comments