Bungalow Dilemma

Action stations!

Now’s the time to be clever, sharp and smart.

If it is stated government policy that something’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen.

The canny response to this is “although we have serious reservations about the policy, we suggest that [x] be incorporated in the policy”.

[x] should be good things like

– clusters

– proper services

– proper design

– respect for amenities valued by not only us city folk but also most people in affected localities.

slightly. agree with some points ur making but if someone has the benefit of daddy owning farm land then it’s his/her right to build on it. of course not at the expense of others.

Originally posted by Non-Taiscist
Action stations!

Now’s the time to be clever, sharp and smart.

Yes like Holland and Denmark. By implementing a Spatial Strategy and not torpedoing it with Decentralisation and Bungalow blitz.

Originally posted by Non-Taiscist
If it is stated government policy that something’s gonna happen, it’s gonna happen.

Like better health and education services as promised in June 2002. It is Fianna Fail and their tail that are in office, this is a pre election stunt. Nothing more

Originally posted by Non-Taiscist
The canny response to this is “although we have serious reservations about the policy, we suggest that [x] be incorporated in the policy”.

No the canny response is to take it to Europe as a fundamental breach of the European Spatial Directive.

Originally posted by Non-Taiscist
[x] should be good things like

– clusters
– proper services
– proper design

I agree in towns, particularly those being depopulated as the punters erect their engineer designed bungalows on every available hill top.

Originally posted by Non-Taiscist
– respect for amenities valued by not only us city folk but also most people in affected localities.

The Countryside is actually an amenity believe it or not, but then again Donnybrook has enough Jeeps to make one think that one was in the country.

This Government really has lost the run of itself, between decentralisations to Virginia Co Cavan, Portlaoise Co Parlon and Killarney Co O’Donaghue and the abandonment of the Agricultural Land Use in development plans it really has shown it is a highly unpopular ‘populist administration.

Today’s editorial in the Irish Times claims that it is they who invented the term ‘bungalow blitz’. I am not trying to be smart or anything, but I always thought the term came about because of a ‘design’ book called bungalow blitz from which many of the designs for bungalows in Ireland came from. Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

Thanks

Phil

The original book was called “Bungalow Bliss”, by Frank Fitzsimons, I believe. This title was bastardised (perhaps appropriately) in a series of now famous articles in the Irish Times by Frank McDonald called Bungalow Blitz. These date back to the early 1980’s.

Thanks for that Shadow. Now it makes more sense to me.

Thanks again

Phil

Originally posted by d_d_dallas
from http://www.examiner.ie

…However, the Irish Farmers Association rejected the guidelines as too restrictive as it said the enforcement will lead to family members being forced to live in clusters of houses.

Macra na Feirme said Mr Cullen was being hypocritical as young people wanting to build homes in rural area were still being hit by exorbitant development levies…

says it all really “forced to live in clusters” … “exorbitant development levies”…

With such rampant me feinism would you want to spend massive quantities of tax payers money building a bridge?

Itr is time for house constructions to be made liable for stamp duty, to eliminate the favourable tax treatment these unsustainable badly designed houses are enjoying.

Even Sinn Fein are in favour of one-off houses, so it must be dangerous!!!!!

i’m not gonna get into this arguement because i couldnt really give two damns.

but this…..

Originally posted by Diaspora

Even Sinn Fein are in favour of one-off houses, so it must be dangerous!!!!!

………..is the most retarded comment i have read on this site.

have to agree with you sw101.
i presume disapora that you haven’t built your own home!!!

Would you say FIN that the Diaspora’s attitude is typical of people from the capital and therfor is Dublin centric.

That the regional centres in Ireland like Galway or Cork feel quite different?

Originally posted by sw101
i’m not gonna get into this arguement because i couldnt really give two damns.

but this…..

………..is the most retarded comment i have read on this site.

If you don’t give two damns you shouldn’t post on the thread.

As for the Sinn Fein remark it was made along the lines of it being a purely populist strategy.

A one liner that hasn’t been costed but will have a massive impact both financially and environmentally. 😮

This web site is increasingly beginning to remind me of geography and GIS rather than actual architecture.

I think to confuse the two to too much of an extent is a problem – expressed by the recent City Architect or City Geographer thread here at Archiseek.

At the end of the day, I know a very many architects nowadays are trying to be geographers and a very many geographers are trying to be architects.

It is a crazy and confused world we are growing up in people.

Very, very nice ESRI Volumes, tonnes of stuff.

Geography—Creating Communities
The maps in this volume show how GIS is cutting across disciplines, providing a common language for discussion, and bringing people together in the decision making process. GIS enables us to share data in different societal communities thereby creating a framework for this global information network.

http://www.esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume16/index.html

http://www.esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume17/index.html

http://www.esri.com/mapmuseum/mapbook_gallery/volume18/index.html

i think so alan. not about sinn fein but about the realities of one off housing cos we are classed as “from the country” no matter what from west brits so our opunion is completely differnent. people from dublin cannot visualise the problems as all they know is the urban existance they live in.

Originally posted by Diaspora

If you don’t give two damns you shouldn’t post on the thread.

if you cant express a rational view then perhaps you might abstain also. i’ll post where i wish

Originally posted by Diaspora
As for the Sinn Fein remark it was made along the lines of it being a purely populist strategy.

you’re an arse diaspora. truly

Originally posted by Diaspora
A one liner that hasn’t been costed but will have a massive impact both financially and environmentally. 😮

and again ( )o( ) pucker up

you’ve said the “countryside is an amenity believe it or not”. its an amenity but an amenity that people live in, farm, bring their children up in, create employment in, produce goods, services and tax in. cluster development as a principle is fine. but to insist on clusters as a requirement to procure planning only promotes the activity of developers in rural areas, who can blindside locals and planners alike, and end up ramming dozens and hundreds of houses up on substandard sites, which are sold on to blow-ins and oppurtunistic outsiders who see a rental dollar to be made.

an option would be to have councils able to compulsarily purchase tracts of land, suitably located for small clusters of housing. then sell off plots to people, services provided, who can then either puchase approved plans and build accordingly, or apply for planning on their own for an appropriate alternative building. architects and urbanists could be employed in the initial stages so that informed decisions could be made from day one, and if policed properly by council officials and planners, everyone involved gets what they want;
structured and sustainable development.
decent standard of architecture and construction.
shared services and minimal environmental impact.
affordable and attractive options for locals to stay in their community and become part of that same communal structure, and also people who have valid reasons for relocating to an area could become better accommodated in that transition

The idea of compulsory purchase of land makes emminent sense but a lot of the motivation behind one off housing is the selling of sites by farmers, it’s a small industry now. Where people live in rural Ireland is goverend by which farmer sells the most sites. Don’t think farmers & country people in really appreciate being told to cluster. There has to be more emphasis on design, even if native hedgerows and hardwood trees were planted, the houses would blend into countyrside a bit better.

Can’t help thinking that an Taisce’s preachiness has alienated people. They haven’t really outlined how they see villages developing. Same opinion in Sunday Time’s article below…..

Comment: Liam Fay: Planning snobs are strangling rural life

You can buy almost anything on a Dublin building site. Drugs, booze, sex toys, jewellery, you name it — all you have to do is find the right guy and place your order. Over the years, the capital’s larger construction sites have grown into sophisticated, self-contained civilisations, complete with their own laws, customs and internal black markets.
There’s a site on the southside where the on-campus merchants are so efficient that they’ve printed up catalogues from which their customers can reserve merchandise for delivery. Right now, the biggest seller among its workers is Viagra, the male impotency pill, which is being dispensed with reckless abandon.

Naturally, this is a facet of the building industry one never hears about, from either employers’ representative bodies or building worker unions. But then, a great deal of what is said publicly about the construction game bears little resemblance to reality as experienced by those who ply their trades in hard hats.

A similar air of unreality surrounds the public representation of the rural planning process, a system which has also evolved a complex, sovereign culture of its own. It’s a world whose logic appears to make perfect sense to insiders but is impenetrable to everybody else.

Though charged with implementing uniform government policy, local authority planners are frequently laws unto themselves. The decisions they take often display little evident consistency or discernible rationale.

Attempting to decode the thinking of council planners is one of rural Ireland’s few thriving industries. This impossible task isn’t made any easier by the imperious and secretive attitudes of many planning officials. Or the fact that most county development plans are harder to read than Finnegan’s Wake.

However, the most controversial feature of the rural planning process is the role played by environmental and conservation agencies, most notably An Taisce — the National Trust for Ireland.

Under the planning acts, local authorities are obliged to consult An Taisce on sensitive development proposals. The organisation has a statutory right to appeal the granting of individual planning permissions which are then adjudicated upon by An Bord Pleanala. It’s a right which most country-dwellers believe is being exercised with undue vigour — not least because the planning board upholds the overwhelming majority of such appeals.

While An Taisce’s objections to rural developments appear to be the product of high-minded environmental concerns — about ground-water contamination, say, or the protection of heritage sites — there is a clear cultural component to their interventions which is never acknowledged, namely an absurdly romanticised view of the countryside as a pastoral idyll in which human intrusion must be kept to an absolute minimum.

Many of these environmentalists are driven by a supercilious and often ideological distaste for what they regard as the crude tastes and tacky aspirations of unsophisticated rural folk. The countryside, they seem to believe, is wasted on the countrified.

Congenitally thick though we are said to be, most rural people understand full well that there is all sorts of extraneous stuff (social envy, snobbery, even class war) mixed in with the ecological arguments propounded by An Taisce and their ilk.

Witness the snooty disdain evidenced by many environmentalists for what are sourly described as the “ostentatious mansions” and “Southfork villas” which supposedly litter the rural skyline, or the condescension with which more modest country homes are dismissed as part of a “bungalow blitz” -— as though the very term “bungalow” were an insult.

Farmers and other rural residents deeply resent the implication that they are unfit to act as custodians of the land on which they live. They become apoplectic when they learn that plans by their son or daughter to build a house on family property have been thwarted, essentially on the say-so of a blow-in or day-tripper.

Hence, the steaming cauldron of resentment and frustration which has been fermenting in rural areas for a decade has spilled over into every aspect of what has become a poisonously divisive debate.

This is why the draft guidelines on “Sustainable Rural Housing” outlined this week by Martin Cullen, the environment minister, are to be welcomed, if only because they bring a degree of clarity and consistency to an arena that’s been blighted by confusion and caprice.

The supporting walls of the guidelines are proposals which, it is claimed, will make it easier for people with rural connections, either by birth or through work, to build one-off houses in the countryside.

The timing of the publication of Cullen’s draft policy — days before the Fianna Fail ard fheis and weeks before the local elections — was obviously politically motivated. In truth, however, the government had little option but to take action in favour of those who wish to build homes in the country, such is the intensity of feeling about this issue throughout the provinces.

If the proposed loosening of planning restrictions results in the construction of more ill-considered ribbon developments and a rash of unsustainable one-off housing in some rural areas, the environmental lobby in general and An Taisce in particular will have nobody to blame but themselves.

The organisation adopted such a relentlessly haughty and antagonistic approach in its guise as planning watchdog that it effectively guaranteed a civic and governmental backlash, in which the baby could well be thrown out with the bathwater.

Thrilled giddy by its perception of itself as the sole protector of the Irish natural world, An Taisce has on occasions acted without evident consideration for the lives of people who reside in the country. While there are fanatics on both sides of this debate, there is nothing to equal the preening arrogance of sanctimonious conservationists.

It’s an arrogance neatly exemplified on radio last week by Ciaran Cuffe, the Green party’s planning spokesman and An Taisce member. “We’ve got to look very carefully at who should be living in the countryside,” declared Cuffe.

Who is this “we” of whom he speaks? And when were they divinely endowed with the power to decide where people should be permitted to live? Groups such as An Taisce, and their fellow rainbow warriors, must eventually realise that they are part of Irish society, not its guardians or overlords. Until they do, their self-appointed crusades are doomed to end in humiliating defeat.

Like Dublin building sites and the rural planning process, the countryside is a highly evolved social order with its own rules, traditions and defence mechanisms. The big difference is that this is a civilisation which has survived for thousands of years. Outsiders who would try to dictate to its inhabitants do so at their peril.

here here. very good article

There was also a good article by John Waters in todays Irish Times coming from a similar perspective.

why all of a sudden has there been a seemingly complete abandonment of sense in relation to the rural planning debate, i have heard some of the most ridiculous arguments from the pro-bungalow blitz brigade (IFA, ICMSA, IRDA) recently, about the communist style diktat forcing the oppressed people from the countryside into clusters, and basically telling anyone who doesnt agree that allowing a free-for all to xxxx off and mind their own business.

i believe that a person who lives in an urban settlement (the majority of the Irish population) have a right to be concerned about what happens to the irish countryside. i really can’t see why anyone can have a problem with that.

i think the problem is that many people living in the countryside now are concerned about the viability of rural communities and believe that housing is the solution. but its not, building houses in a free for all, the majority of which will have no contribution to rural communities as they are merely dormitories for towns and cities, will actually further contribute to rural decline.

rural areas are a resource as well as a place that people live in, however, no-one in the debate should be claiming ‘ownership’ of the countryside, or its values, meanings, importance etc. when will there be a rational approach to rural planning? anyone?

Originally posted by bunch
.i believe that a person who lives in an urban settlement (the majority of the Irish population) have a right to be concerned about what happens to the irish countryside. i really can’t see why anyone can have a problem with that.

how do you see this exactly. how does it affect those people who do live in urban ireland other than the view when the flash by in their cars to holiday retreats in rural ireland!

Originally posted by bunch
.
i think the problem is that many people living in the countryside now are concerned about the viability of rural communities and believe that housing is the solution. but its not, building houses in a free for all, the majority of which will have no contribution to rural communities as they are merely dormitories for towns and cities, will actually further contribute to rural decline.

that point is valid if speaking of moving everyone into towns etc. i can’t see it working for people who work the land building on their land.

Originally posted by bunch
.

rural areas are a resource as well as a place that people live in, however, no-one in the debate should be claiming ‘ownership’ of the countryside, or its values, meanings, importance etc. when will there be a rational approach to rural planning? anyone?

i’m sorry…no-one should be claiming ownership. do u own your own house? if u do then do you not claim ownership. why should it be any different . they own the land from actually paying for it. i know this whole notion of once you pay for something you own it may have some opposition in a communist society but we haven’t got that far yet.

fin,

i think the rural housing problem, as a planning issue, has become contentious because of the high level of urban generated demand for housing (dormitory housing, second homes etc), not because of an increase in the demand for housing from those with real socio-economic connections to rural areas. i do not think anyone has a difficulty with a farmer’s or someone working in rural areas’ right to build on his/her own land. it is an urban issue because it relates directly to the urban housing market and the way that affects demand for housing in the countryside.

my point on ‘ownership’ was probably ambigious. what i was trying to say was that the ‘countryside’ is a valuable resource, and that this ‘value’ is both tangible (agriculture, forestry, tourism) and intangible (amenity, visual, environmental), and that what a person does on their own patch of land can have implications on a wider scale (in terms of water, drainage, flooding, visual pollution), and that perhaps there should be more consideration of this. i was not advocating an elitist/condescending attitude of an urban clique demanding a pure and untouched countryside for their enjoyment.

apologies bunch. good point. there is a large demand from those urbanites wanting to relocate however it benefits the smaller communities if they do. more people around then more money or so the economics say anyway. there is no real stragety which i guess this was trying to do before the elections next month. keep the local punters happy kinda thing.
the housing strageties for small towns for these particular urbanites is the only senisible answer but then again how does one distuinguish between them.

Originally posted by sw101
if you cant express a rational view then perhaps you might abstain also. i’ll post where i wish

It is a highly rational view that particular political parties are making uncosted promises. You don’t need a zimmer frame to remember the broken promises before the last election. As an individual who observes the political field quite closely I have never seen Sinn Fein cost anything.

Originally posted by sw101
you’re an arse diaspora. truly

Not your first personal attack

Originally posted by sw101
and again ( )o( ) pucker up

Silky oratory do you give lessons?

Originally posted by sw101
you’ve said the “countryside is an amenity believe it or not”. its an amenity but an amenity that people live in, farm, bring their children up in, create employment in, produce goods, services and tax in. cluster development as a principle is fine. but to insist on clusters as a requirement to procure planning only promotes the activity of developers in rural areas, who can blindside locals and planners alike, and end up ramming dozens and hundreds of houses up on substandard sites, which are sold on to blow-ins and oppurtunistic outsiders who see a rental dollar to be made.

The making of the development plan is carried out by local authorities to decide the best locations to place sustainable and proper development. The only justifiable exemptions are on social grounds. It is the elimination of the Local Authorities right to zone lands Agricultural use that is the problem. If a farming family wish to erect an architect designed house on a suitable plot with all the necessary environmental safegaurds I support their right to do so as good planning once the children be it second generation are active within the area. It is the failure to tie permissions to five-ten year occupancy that frightens me.

Originally posted by sw101
an option would be to have councils able to compulsarily purchase tracts of land, suitably located for small clusters of housing. then sell off plots to people, services provided, who can then either puchase approved plans and build accordingly, or apply for planning on their own for an appropriate alternative building. architects and urbanists could be employed in the initial stages so that informed decisions could be made from day one, and if policed properly by council officials and planners, everyone involved gets what they want;
structured and sustainable development.
decent standard of architecture and construction.
shared services and minimal environmental impact.
affordable and attractive options for locals to stay in their community and become part of that same communal structure, and also people who have valid reasons for relocating to an area could become better accommodated in that transition

Thats some monologue for a person who couldn’t care less. But its just a little radical for a free market economy.

how is it radical? its viable and achievable with proper management.

a person who couldnt care less wouldnt suggest anything, merely point out the biased idiocy of your remarks. i on the other hand have a vested interest because of geographical, familial, and future interests in the issue. i am more aware than most of the frivolty of martin cullens proposals, and the unenforcable nature of national planning policies. planning officials operate under their own edicts, and ultimately this is allowable in the sense than local strategies must be adhered to to avoid centralisation of what is a distinctly rural issue.

your habit of accepting wholesale the word of policy and plans which are always made to be broken, and your acceptance of them as gospel while it suits you, undermines any arguement you have regards these issues to which you seem insistent on remaining almost entirely ignorant

Originally posted by sw101
how is it radical? its viable and achievable with proper management.

Anything involving CPO’s is a disaster, as an architect you wouldn’t be expected to have this perspective. It would be better if no-one had it in my opinion.
But from my own background I would definitely say the IFA stance on the CPOs for the National Development plan should be bourne in mind.

Originally posted by sw101
a person who couldnt care less wouldnt suggest anything, merely point out the biased idiocy of your remarks.

Stick to the point personal attacks solve nothing. This issue is entirely political and not about the theory you have supplied as containing a number of essential elements.

Originally posted by sw101
i on the other hand have a vested interest because of geographical, familial, and future interests in the issue.

I was born in Galway and have relations scattered from Kerry to Mayo, who I should visit more. It affects directly everyone of us through higher taxation, both urban and rural alike.

Originally posted by sw101
i am more aware than most of the frivolty of martin cullens proposals, and the unenforcable nature of national planning policies. planning officials operate under their own edicts, and ultimately this is allowable in the sense than local strategies must be adhered to to avoid centralisation of what is a distinctly rural issue.

I agree that the proposals are slapdash. I also agree with the need for balanced decentralisation. Off topic a little, but if decentralisation was properly clustered a while back, JetMagic might have succeeded. The National Spatial Strategy should be implemented as written.

Originally posted by sw101
your habit of accepting wholesale the word of policy and plans which are always made to be broken, and your acceptance of them as gospel while it suits you, undermines any arguement you have regards these issues to which you seem insistent on remaining almost entirely ignorant

That attitude is precisely why this country is in a mess. Had the Buchannan report been implemented 30 years ago we wouldn’t have such a large Dublin.

http://www.glasgowarchitecture.co.uk/news%2004_mar.htm

We’re designing this house on the west coast. Just scroll down two projects and you’ll see. Thought I could post it direct

Comments welcome:)

Alan, My two cents:
I like its over all design and shape, it looks great. The only thing is that I personally don’t really like the use of stone on buildings like that. I would prefer it to be white. That is just my opinion though! 🙂

The stone is the natural limestone from the area Phil………we’re saying that you can have a modern home built from indigenous materials.

It could also be rendered……..so I take your point.

Alan, That was what I thought was the case. I just sometimes think that at the moment there is too much pressure put on architects to ‘contextualise’ their buildings using stone which is from the area, when the contrast between rendered white walls and the landscape can look better in the long run. What is the vernacular of the area. Are traditional houses generally whitewashed walls or are they stone?

I saw an article in an Irish Arts Review recently about a house in Cork which was half renderering and half limestone. I will try and dig out the exact reference for you so you can see what you think.

Best of luck with it

Phil

Again, I take your point:)

The surrounding area though is more mock Tudor Georgian than vernacular, though some are what you would recognise as traditional.

The difficulty is that in my view the traditional houses don’t take advantage of the spectacular views …………small openings and windows and the render colour is usually grey rather than white.

i agree alan. small windows are a shite.
i like the use of stone and render mixed in the right places of course can really set the stone out. i like the double height living space but is there a view into it from what looks like a bedroom behind. and it seems that it’s projecting out. nice touch.
i have always liked the projected wall thingy. i have always found that the roof of that is a touch problematic though. it is an amazing feature to a room even if it only comes out by 500mm or so.
have you thought of giving the terrace a canopy of some sort as probably in the future there will be a conservatory put there by some careless owner. and the car port is a nice idea. not enough of that anymore.

I think also that if you have a view FIN, rather than leaving it completely open to the sky a projecting roof helps to frame it.

It’s a study behind and the house is on three levels. The top level contains the bedrooms……..the master bedroom looks out to the sea and we are considering a deck.

Unfortunately, although I like to add more surrounding context to drawings the neighbour is one of those mock Tudor Georgian types………hence the fast growing cypress.

yeah. too much of a view to take in can work against the design as much as with it.
i don’t know about a deck though. might be nice but then again it may be rarely used espically from the bedroom. a deck from the study with an external stair to just beside iving space may be used more.
sorry i don’t mean to impose myself it’s just when i see a design i can’t help myself. u can tell me to bugger off if u want if u don’t see any point in them.

and lol. yes. u’ld love to throw miracle grow so the come up even faster to hide those horrible neighbours!!!

No problem FIN, constructive comment always welcome:)

😀
otherwise a nice house design with plenty of southern like filtering throughout. the terrace would be a lovely place for a bbq.

AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh Fin…..now yer cookin with gas.

And some ice cold beer, of course. Bring Kylie.

i was thinking more playboy mansion job than just kylie. cos to be honest only one of us can have her whereas there is plenty of playboy girls:D

oh! and beer…naturally….lots and lots

Good design

It is very rare that one off houses have that level of architectural quality.

The drawings give no indication as to its site and impact.

But on what I’ve seen I’d give it a thumbs up.

alan d,

Does the Scottish countryside suffer from bungalow blight ?

Interesting question Shaun, which has made me think.

One off houses in the Scottish countryside are rare. It does happen but much depends on the attittude of the local planning guidlines. We also have “greenbelt”, which is protected by law, surrounding our major cities.

However, developers are challenging this law in various areas on the look out for virgin land on which to build. A situation made more complicated because of the real need for affordable housing for local people.

Consequently, if a developer is granted premission for new housing in a rural area it must include a percentage for rent for young local families.

As for one off houses……I could not build a house for my parents in law within my own land because it was within a protected countryside area so had to settle for an extension, however if the new build contained a studio from which I did business and that business contributed to the area, permission would have been granted.

I think though that the situation here is much different because culturally it is the oldest child that gets the farm and the land is not divided among all the offspring as (I think) the case is in Ireland. Consequently we don’t usually have half a dozen farmer’s offspring looking to build a house on their parcel of land.

I have to admit though, I have not seen a purple, lime green or bright orange mock tudor mansion before in Scotland, like the ones I pass driving to the west coast of Ireland 🙂

if a farmers son wanted to build a house, would he be deemed as serving the community and contributing to the area?
i am just wondering where they define the line. i presume it’s entirely up to the local authority.

Much is left to the planning authority and local government FIN. They can make legislation work for them ( and against the applicant)depending on interpretation.

Working buildings on argricultural land belonging to the farm like a byre or cow shed and from which the farmer does business, don’t require planning permission anyway.

Don’t know if this applies to a single house, though. Would depend on how you told the story.

If the farmer provided holiday accomodation within the development for instance from which paying tourists contributed or provided employment then I think it would be no problem.

really! jeez holidays homes are looked on here like rangers players

Population in our rural areas is in decline FIN because existing communities are finding it harder to provide support for local people……real jobs are hard to come by and house prices are high.

It’s a balance that has to be struck and we’ve been at it longer than you guys . Planning legislation in Ireland seems to me to be very “young” consequently you’re just finding your feet. It’s important that you don’t become dogmatic

I see That Frank McDonald is continuing his crusade against one off houses on Page 2 of the times today. Interesting article about Killarney where one off suburban estates are springing up about 10 miles from killarney. Another guy talking about Kenmare (one of Ireland’s more attrative towns) says only 7 families of school going age live in the town, everybody else wants to live “out the country”. Wonder if cost is a factor in all this as well as people’s desire to live away from everybody else. Still if people think a place like Kenmare is too Urban for them, there’s no hope.

i presume that means retirement homes being the most of kenmare. that incorporates what alan was saying earlier that he couldn’t get planning for his out-laws but could for a studio. this seems to be an intelligent view to attract younger families into a rural area so as to keep the population alive (so to speak) for another generation.
but i presume that some people would have a problem with that here.

Interesting letter also in the Times today, anto.

Saying we may not like it but in a democracy we have to accept that the majority view prevails ……the solution is to get the voters” the people who matter” to accept that destruction of the environment is a bad thing.

Seems to me therfor that education rather than an inflexible or prescriptive view and legislation is the key. I would certainly not agree with compulsory purchase.

Don’t intend this comment to be nationalist at all or indeed parochial l……. but in Scotland if there is a controversial issue regarding planning matters in rural areas reported on tv or radio , like wind farms or single houses or housing development or new roads , it’s noticable that the majority of those opposed seem not to be indigenous people but more likely to be English and from London.

The Not In My Back Yard’s made their money in the South, cashed in and moved north to a rural retreat

oh! jesus that sounds so familiar!!!!

Maybe in turn there’s people from Connemara, Corraun and the Dingle Peninsula fucking up Hackney?

Ever thought of that FIN, eh?

never thought of that. but good point.
it’s very probable to be honest

Do most of us here agree that 95% of the bungalows/villas built “down the country” over the last 30 odd years are cringe inducingly shite architecturally speaking and that 95 % of the bungalows/villas that are likely to be built over the next 30 odd years will also be just as offensive to us arty-farty non-rural dwellers.
That is what this thread is essentially about and how in the name of jaysus can the Irish countryside be saved, isn’t it ???

Originally posted by alan d
Maybe in turn there’s people from Connemara, Corraun and the Dingle Peninsula fucking up Hackney?

Classic

Adding the Dubs it must be said that If they stayed in Hackney and didn’t return at 50 there would be a lot less one off houses. 🙂

Interesting thing about Frank McDonald and the letters to times etc. is that most rural folk never see this. Not many rural folk “take” the times. I mean they’re only preaching to the already converted mainly urban sophisticates. Then again most of the Times readership lives in car dependant suburbs. I mean if you read the provincial press you never see this type of critisism, far more likely to read the farmer can’t get permission on his own land type of article. Why does the issue seem to be more of an issue on the western seabord? Is the tradition there to live in a more dispersed fashion with the east coast rural folk more “villagised” or is it that small farmers in the “wesht” see sites as their only crop that’ll make them any money

95% of houses built anywhere are shite Shaun.

Anto, it’s a mistake I think to suggest that because people in the country don’t take the Times they are disinterested or insensitive…..that has not been my experience but rather it a a paternalistic or condescending attitude that grinds.

It’s discussion, debate and education not legislation that’s the key, to this…… which can only change attitude over time

I see also that “millionaire composer” Andrew Lloyd Webber has pleaded with Martin Cullen from his castle home in Tipperary not to introduce the new guidance arguing that the landscape has already “some of the most hideous housing anywhere in the world.”

Now if I were a Irish landowner trying to build myself and my family a home……. that comment would piss me right off.

Originally posted by alan d

Anto, it’s a mistake I think to suggest that because people in the country don’t take the Times they are disinterested or insensitive…..that has not been my experience but rather it a a paternalistic or condescending attitude that grinds.

It’s discussion, debate and education not legislation that’s the key, to this…… which can only change attitude over time

Yeah true enough, that’s why an Tasice’s campaign has backfired so spectacularly.

Good article from

http://www.unison.ie/search/frame_search.php3?span=web&words=one%20off%20housing

One-off Housing Killed My Cat
By Mark Waters
Sep 18, 2003, 18:04:00

Email this article
Printer friendly page

OK, this one’s personal. One-off housing killed my cat.

For much of my youth I lived in so-called ribbon development housing on the outskirts of Castlebar. The ‘development’ consisted of a number of one-off houses clinging to the sides of the busy main road. Each house was individually serviced with its own water supply, electricity supply and telephone line and septic tank. Each had its own access to the main road. Each had its own means of handling refuse disposal. In short, each dwelling was a castle, self-sufficient and living in splendid isolation from its neighbours.

My cat was a beauty; her fur was a kaleidoscope of black, white and gold. We had rescued her from certain death after her mother – a stray- gave birth to a litter in a coal bag outside our house. She grew strong and healthy and one day produced a litter of her own. A few days after, following an unfortunate altercation with a neighbour’s dog she decided it would be wise to take her five babies to a safer place. That place was in another neighbour’s yard – on the other side of the busy main road.

The arrangement worked well for a few days. The kittens were safe and their mother would cross the road a few times a day to be fed at our house. Then one day the inevitable happened. The cat was killed crossing the road by a motorist who was driving so fast that he probably didn’t even notice. We did our best to nurse the motherless kittens but without their mother it was hopeless and one by one they faded away and died.

Our cats paid the ultimate price but we ourselves suffered in little ways every day as a consequence of living in a one-off house. Services were inferior. Our electricity gave out a light that was a pale imitation of that of our friends in town. Our water supply had weak pressure. Our septic tank left our back garden looking like a marsh. Later when the internet arrived it came at a crawl. Our telephone line was so far from the telephone exchange that we would have been quicker driving two miles to the nearest shop and buying the newspaper rather than wait for it to download.

And everything was so far away. Hours of our life were squandered travelling to and from school, to the sports clubs, swimming pool, and the houses of friends and, later on, to and from discos and pubs. Like most of our neighbours we were a single car household and huge demands were placed on the car. Cycling was an option only if you were willing to take your chances on the Russian roulette of the road.

And the road itself was like a knife cutting through the heart of the community. It was so dangerous that you were taking your life into your own hands if you dared to visit your neighbour. So we didn’t. We retreated into our castles, and to our televisions, barely connected to the world by our cars – the very things that were imprisoning us in our homes.

This is the legacy of one-off housing and this is the reality of Bertie Ahern’s notion of supporting one-off housing as a means of creating viable communities in the west.

One-off housing developments may save the politicians at the next election and they may save the farmers by putting a few euro in their pockets to delay the inevitable day of reckoning before they finally accept that their lifestyle is unviable and unsustainable. But they will not save the farmers’ sons and daughters. The farmers cry that their children cannot build on their land and are forced to leave. But it is not the lack of one-off housing that causes the sons and daughters to jump ship; it is the cost of living and the quality of life that the consequences of one-off developments force on them. They leave because to stay means to pay more for poorer services and to suffer boredom, loneliness and a denial of their potential to contribute to and enjoy a fully functioning community.

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. It gives us the breathing space to fulfil the potential that is often frustrated by a lack of common purpose. The loneliness and isolation of the elderly and housebound, the struggle of the GAA clubs to make the numbers for teams, the difficulty teenagers face trying to get to the disco because it’s twenty miles away, the drink-driving roller coaster home after a night at a pub because of the lack of taxis, the difficulty of organising a community festival; these are just a few of the things made more difficult to deal with when we have to first surmount the obstacle of a dysfunctional and disconnected community.

We delude ourselves into thinking that one-off housing is about freedom and the rights of the individual. But if everyone is given complete freedom and the right to build where they like then no one is free. Everyone is compromised by everyone else. Without co-ordination the friction between individuals becomes so great that we all grind to a halt. With rights comes responsibilities. In the case of property rights these responsibilities are crucial. How landowners use their land has a huge impact on the broader society. It could be argued that many landowners are being so irresponsible in their attitude to the land that its potential for future generations has been irrecoverably damaged.

We delude ourselves into thinking that this is Ireland and that we are different. Dr. Seamus Caulfield, well known for his work with the Ceide Fields, has suggested that the definition of an Irish village is different to that of its British or European counterpart. He says that housing of the one-off type, where dwellings could be up to two miles apart and still be considered part of the village, were commonplace in the west of Ireland for much of our recent history and that planning strategy should take this into account.

But if we accept this argument then we must also acknowledge that many of these uniquely Irish villages were unviable and have all but disappeared and all those that do survive rely on the dubious foundations of farm subsidies and the release-valve of emigration to sustain them. To accept a one-off housing policy and to encourage development along the lines of the allegedly uniquely Irish village is to condemn us to repeat the mistakes of a past which few of us would wish to return to.

We delude ourselves into thinking that our leaders don’t have the vision and ability to solve the problem. But we have county development plans and national strategies – developed with strong input from politicians – which are often models of vision, reason and common-sense but which are then totally compromised by the short-term interests of the self-same politicians.

The conflict between the short-term interests of politicians – always with an eye on the next election – and the long-term view of the planners has led to a paralysis that has damaged the integrity of the planning process. Furthermore, when politicians have the power to influence or reverse individual planning decisions it undermines confidence and defeats the whole point of the process. The politicians should only have the power to frame policy. Then they should let the planners get on with the job of implementing that policy.

Support for a one-off housing policy is tantamount to support for no housing policy at all. It shows a lack of any vision or hope for the viability and sustainability of communities in the west of Ireland. The long-term benefit is sacrificed on the altar of blind short-term individualist thinking, a way of thinking that has stifled our potential so often in the past. The archaeologists at the Ceide Fields with justifiable pride state that their discovery proves that there were human settlements in Mayo 5000 years ago. Looking at the settlements around me today it is hard to see that we have made much progress since.

© Copyright 2004 by the author(s)/photographer(s) and http://www.castlebar.ie

ACH…….. don’t get me started on An Taisce, again.

I’ve already said I’m buggered why anyone takes them seriously.

and yes I agree ………this is a good article.

alan d,

Have ya been over to Holland yet, or Belgium for that matter, most of the houses are actually pleasing to look at.

What are the alternatives for a person who wants to build their own home? Its pretty much live in a poorly constructed & designed but well marketed shitebox – full stop. And I think the poor services in rural areas is a very weak argument. By living in a high density urban development the services are not much better – but there is some benefits to the developer.
Any land earmarked for housing is just that – not High Density, medium density etc with minimum lot sizes & such – hence 16+ units acre are lobbed in – in the same fashion as the “estate” next door.

Originally posted by alan d
ACH…….. don’t get me started on An Taisce, again.

I’ve already said I’m buggered why anyone takes them seriously.

Like you take anything except your own ego seriously

Originally posted by alan d
and yes I agree ………this is a good article.

An excellent article but no doubt you would have complained about its length had it been posted by an pro An Taisce individual.

Design is always an important consideration, but as this article shows there are also many other considerations.

Aahhh good to have you back to your old self Diaspora…….hate all that complimentary stuff.

Kinda…you know…creepy

restored.

pheeew…….

……….is that Eric Clapton at the end?

no alan, that was me

……amazing.

Like the mullet haircut, nice touch

Originally published by FT UK ‘urgently needs’ 120,000 new homes a year By Alexander Jolliffe
Published: March 17 2004 9:02 | Last Updated: March 17 2004 9:02

“Up to 120,000 new homes might be needed every year in England to prevent a boom and bust housing market and bring trends to the European Union average, a Treasury-commissioned review said on Wednesday. It recommended ministers set an objective of more affordable homes and said local authorities should charge more for second homes and recommended a tax on windfall gains made by landowners.

In a final review of housing supply, Kate Barker, a member of the Bank of England’s interest-rate setting monetary policy committee, told Gordon Brown, the chancellor, that rising prices had made housing increasingly unaffordable.

Mr Brown will reply to the report when presenting the Budget on Wednesday.

Commentators have warned that the Barker review, unlike the Treasury-commissioned of the mortgage market, is politically sensitive. Homeowners benefiting from rising house prices may be reluctant to support higher supply, out of fear that this could damp possible increases in the value of their homes.

The report said that for many, the aspiration to own homes would remain a dream unless the surging trend in house prices was reduced. Prices had risen in real terms – after allowing for inflation – by 2.4 per cent annually over the last 30 years, said the report.

Ms Barker said the annual increase of 120,000 homes would lower the country’s inflation-adjusted house price trend to 1.1 per cent, in line with the EU average.

Alternately, to bring the annual trend down to 1.8 per cent , about 70,000 houses a year would probably be needed in England.

Surging prices had also created macro-economic instability and had a bad effect on economic growth. To improve stability and make homes more affordable, a lower trend in house prices was needed, said Ms Barker, who published an interim report last year.

The housing market also cuts into labour market mobility because many people cannot afford to move into expensive areas.

Ms Barker set out in her report a range of recommendations to improve the housing market:

*Ministers should establish the objective of more affordable homes.

*More investment, building up to between £1.2bn and £1.6bn a year, would be needed to provide extra social housing to meet expected future needs.

*Local authorities should charge extra for second homes, to make sure housing stock is used more efficiently.

*Ministers should implement proposals for “tax transparent property vehicles,” and boost institutional investment in the property market.

*The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister – which handles housing – should set up a community infrastructure fund of £100m-£200m. Regions should submit bids for funding to support the costs of transport infrastructure schemes.

*A “planning gain supplement,” to capture some development gains made by landowners, to ensure that local communities share in the value of development. The government should tax some of the windfall gains made by landowners from selling land for development. The tax rate should not be high enough to deter development, but must provide extra resources to increase housing supply.

*A new regional planning executive, to advise the existing regional planning body about the amount of housing needed to hit the affordability target.

*The principle of containing urban sprawl through greenbelt “designation” should stay. But planning authorities should use their powers to avoid perverse environmental effects elsewhere.

*The government should consider moving to an alternative scheme to ‘right to buy’ that is cheaper to provide and enables more social housing.”[/B]

In the light of *The principle of containing urban sprawl through greenbelt “designation”
should stay.

Where does that leave farmland? :rolleyes:

outside the greenbelt?

Originally posted by sw101
outside the greenbelt?

You mean beyond the point where it is economically viable to provide services at equilibrium or better.

yes. that

I was watching the Channel 4 programme last night Relocation Relocation.

It featured a family selling up in England to buy an aprtment in southern England as part of a two property plan to move to Ireland. And where did they want to move to in Ireland?

Yep, you guessed it, bungalowland i.e. Ireland outside of the Greater Dublin Area. They bought this field on a hill with a great view and wanted to build an ugly bungalow, which they had planning permission for.

I was thinking ‘my God – its bad enough having everyone in this country wanting to build a bungalow without having foreigners coming in to do the same’.

Of course Bertie et al. can look with pride in 20 years when every field in Ireland has its own bungalow.

Yep, feckin awful it was, right enough.

That show is bloody awful. Grand designs. Now theres a show worth watching. Did you see the hufhaus one?

Yep – there was a group of men on the train next to me the day after it was on, and they nattered on about it for half an hour -why can’t we do that in this flippin country, all hail the Germans etc etc!

Leave Location Location Location Relocation Relocation Revisited alone!
But yeah, I was absolutely mortified at the planner standing outside of that lovely old farmhouse, and advising that this indigenous little gem be knocked down, and replaced by – wait for it – ‘a house in character with the area’! – cue wallpaper shots of the most ghastly, disgustingly inappropriate two storey PVC clad horrors perched up on the nearest hill! It truly beggared belief!

What a disgraceful, farcical state of affairs. The 4 million or so people watching in the UK, especially those rural-based, must have been falling out of their seats with mirth.

I watch this prog every week, and seeing rural Ireland on it for the first time, it really brought home to me the difference between here and rural planning in the UK. The bungalows clinging onto hillsides looked so alien on LLL last night because I’m not used to seeing them AT ALL on the UK based editions.

And the fact that every house featured, except ironically for the house thay wanted to demolish, had PVC windows, was equally noticable compared with the UK editions. People in this country couldn’t give two figs for asthetics, on any level.
It’s all about things being new and shiny – plain and simple.

and cheap

@Originally published by Irish Times (John McManus wrote:

The full economic cost of providing of providing infrastructure to holiday homes should be levied on their owners, according to Prof John Fitzgerald of the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
The levy is a “second best solution” to the problems created by the high level of holiday homes in the Border, Midland and Western Region, he argues in a special paper published with the ESRI’s Spring economic commentary. The best solution would be a property tax, but this had ‘proven unacceptable to the public,’ according to Prof Fitzgerald.

The demand for holiday homes in the BMW region, fuelled in part by tax-breaks, has pushed up the price of housing in the region he claims. “The result has been a significant reduction in the competitiveness of the BMW region, adversely affecting the Governments policy goal of promoting more balenced regional development,” he argues.

The trend is likely to continue, he argues, and the long-term economic problems it poses could be eradicated if those buying holiday homes paid the full economic cost in terms of both infrastructure and the negative externalities (in terms of higher prices for the residents)”. Copyright Irish times March 2005)

A pretty reputable group of economists have endorsed a view that has been long held in many quarters, I’d say.

I thought all tax breaks were being eliminated. I agree with the economic levy for second holiday houses. In fact if we make it expensive to hold onto holiday houses then prices will fall in these areas.

@asdasd wrote:

In fact if we make it expensive to hold onto holiday houses then prices will fall in these areas.

That certainly would bring about a significant change in the rural BMW housing market, it would however have other knock-on effects such as placing large numbers into the “negative equity trap”. It is as Prof Fitzgerald says ‘politically unacceptable’ and would do little other than to halt the entire residential construction sector in economically sub-prime areas. I feel that a radical measure such as this would be reversed before too long and you would be back to square one with bungalow blitz brigade rampant.

@asdasd wrote:

I thought all tax breaks were being eliminated. I agree with the economic levy for second holiday houses. .

Hammer Nail Head, I agree with both your points here I was under the impression that in all but a few very area specific cases (limited to individual streets) in genuinely decaying town centres that questionable tax schemes were confined to history, obviously I was wrong.

I also agree with a levy on holiday homes and not a disincentive on the scale of a development levy contribution, it must be substantial enough to protect the population of the BMW from those who have superior purchasing power. It is not that I am in favour of distorting the market for ideological reasons, it is that I like many others wish to see all of the country develop and it is evident that high house prices in remote locations are putting pressure on to wage rates which are costing these regions the type of investments that generate long term employment.

I have to agree with asdasd the priority has got to be the local buyers, if people are up to their necks in debt to buy second homes, they shouldn’t be. The priority must be affordable housing within towns to take development pressures off the countryside, particularly in scenic areas.

I think that this thread is quite appropriate

https://archiseek.com/content/showthread.php?t=2303

I discovered this amazing difference whilst posting a link to the Checklist thread: check out the difference between

http://www.michaelmcdowell.ie

and

http://www.michaelmcdowell.com

Was that you Paul?

@Owen a fan of Marian Harkin wrote:

http://scripts.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/regularvote.cfm?pollid=1846

No. All taxes are bad in themselves. But these taxes would destroy the holiday homes production business. and where are holiday homes produced? In the deprived west of Ireland in remote areas. Who is building them? Poor people in remote areas that the IDA and Enterprise Ireland will never do anything for. Who will be thrown out of work if the industry collapses? See previous answer. Does anyone ever engage their brain before coming up with suggestions like these?

The wonderfuf free market is developing the west. Populating it gradually. Providing work. Providing jobs. giving rich people a chance to get out of the pressure cooker in Ireland rather than going through the harassment of going to Spain and all the associated health and social (I almost said welfare) benfits.

But greedy D4 civil servants want to block it for their own selfish ends. They can’t get into “work” in empty enough trains. They can’t get the money to produce more reports on decline in the West of Ireland. They want more money and promotions to go to the IDA. They make me sick. they should all be sacked.
owen, marionharkins ireland

Any thoughts on this extract I got from http://www.platform11.org

@Thomond Park wrote:

Any thoughts on this extract I got from http://www.platform11.org

yes, it is not an accurate reflection of the situation, Here in the gaeltacht and here in my parish there are a lot of holiday homes being built. It is not an industry, most of the people working on the actual building are on the dole and working, are built by people who emply people from Northern Ireland who are on the dole there.
Local people apply for planning permission and get it in scenic areas, using letters from councillors who say that they are members of the indigrenous community and that they need it for their own use, they are then swiftly sold to the highest bidder. Many are sold off the plans. I know all the builders round here who are building holiday homes and none of them employ people properly ie:Paye workers. Marion Harkin was at a meeting here last years which was held to discuss a new area plan for the area and of course she said all the right things to all the people, ie; People should be able to live in their own area, should be able to build on their own land etc. I listend as people stood up and said the usual stuff but the reality is most of the people were doing just as I said building where ever they could and selling the houses to any one who would pay the most money, No considerationj for their neighbours or the langueage. The population of Donegal has risen by about 10% the amount of housing applicatioin shas risen by about 350%. A headline in a local paper said 25% of houses were unoccupied in Donegal, that is not accurate inour townlan there are 37 houses 10 occupied. I would hate to think what the true figures are like in places like Dunfanaghy. I am not from D4 I am a member of the indigenous population who is saddened by the scramble for money here, and the destructionj of the landscape. Another effect of the holiday homes is that local people are priced out of the market.

I totally agree and the zoning in the current Donegal development plan is a recipe for disaster, as opposed to recognising ‘town centres’ as every other plan does, Donegal has come up with the idea of a ‘community facility’. These community facilities which can be a single building such as a church, School or even an obscure cult’s gospel hall are deeemed as providing sufficient ‘critical mass’ to support residential development, even though in most cases the infrastructural support from roads, water and retail do not exist. The bending of the generally accepted town centre definition has without doubt led to the figures that you have presented.

Elsewhere I definitely agree totally with your reading of ‘the local needs game’. Which is most damaging in Gealtacht areas and proving entirely counter-productive to the excellent work being done in preserving our native langauge. On examination it is often clear that many if not most applications are a thinly veiled cover for what amount to applications for holiday homes as the financial circumstances of the applicants and the scale of the properties proposed simply don’t add up. The best laugh I had in ages was an aplication for ‘Bungalow with atrium and ancilliary structures’

What is the problem with bungalows they hardly cause as much impact as highrise towers, I think bungalows are quaint and the gardens can be really nice. They also get people out of town centres where children can have problems with their rougher peers and I’ve heard this can be a problem in places like Bundoran and Ballyshannon. I know if I had a job there I wouldn’t want my family living in either town.

@Spitzer wrote:

What is the problem with bungalows they hardly cause as much impact as highrise towers, I think bungalows are quaint and the gardens can be really nice.

Impacts are relative to their setting and in an urban area there are always specific sites that can accomodate a tall building without negatively impacting on the City as a whole. Landmark buildings can work very well in the overall urban environment similarly additional dwellings can work very well in specific places in rural locations.

The problem I have with one-off houses is not with bungalow design per se but rather the indiscriminate placing of one-off houses in areas that should not see any development. The areas I am talking about are always zoned agriculture or high amenity, there is nothing worse in my opinion than any house being inserted into a pristine landscape and this is worst when a badly designed ‘please look at me’ type design is sited on an elevated site no where near any other development.

What I can’t understand is how some elements are prepared to throw the zoning model completely out the window, if someone proposed an industrial development for a residential area there would be uproar with cries of this contravenes the zoning inappropriate and the area can’t take it etc. Yet it appears that in large swathes of Ireland you can speculatively develop planning permissions for sale or build holiday homes in totally inappropriate places. Yet it appears that the only people who notice this are returned emmigrants and tourists.

@Spitzer wrote:

What is the problem with bungalows they hardly cause as much impact as highrise towers, I think bungalows are quaint and the gardens can be really nice. They also get people out of town centres where children can have problems with their rougher peers and I’ve heard this can be a problem in places like Bundoran and Ballyshannon. I know if I had a job there I wouldn’t want my family living in either town.

What sort of problems have children had in Bundoran and Ballyshannon?

Bundoran is the Amusement arcade capital of Ireland it is simply a rough spot with the wrong type of tourists, you just wouldn’t let your kids out there in the evenings. Ballyshannon for no one knows why has always just been a rough sort of a kip.

Sligo now theres a nice town or Donegal Town even.

Spitzer, I am not trying to have a go at you, but the reason I asked about the problems in those two towns is that I thought it seemed like a pretty bizarre excuse for one-off housing. Obviously you have knowledge of problems in Bundoran and Ballyshannon, and have every right not to want to expose your children to this. However, as your points with regards to Sligo or Donegal Town show, it is not a general rule of thumb that town centres are dangerous for children. I therefore don’t think that it is possible to defend one-off housing on this point what-so-ever.

I guessed the reason why bundoran has been largly seen as this up to now is probably been more to do with the fact that it was probably the cheapest and closest resort to the north and hence why it is so popular with northern tourists. it also so happens that the less well off in the north seem to live on the interfaces of sectarian segregration where the most trouble used to and still does to a lesser extent happen. therefore especially around the 12th of july and also for all the summer (marching season) it became a refuge of sorts. all that said the main reason I see for all this “development” along vwith the tax insentives offered by the government it was probably slightly consumer driven as well since most of the tourists who stayed in bundoran up till now stayed in mobile homes or guest houses and I think our increased economic prosperity has also increased expectations in terms of accomadation and service.

All that said bundoran centre has had a facelift in the last few years even if its ourskirts are threatening to take over the whole of leitrim. the other good thing about the by-bass being built around both ballyshannon and bundoran for bundoran is that it may now define a limit to where the development can spread (still too far all the same).

Fergus I understand Your political rationale for a fortnight, but the town is a kip without political explanation for the other 50 weeks a year. I’d plan away from that if I had a chance.

Huge fall in NI rural bungalow permissions
From ireland.com12:24Friday, 1st June, 2007
Regulations designed to stem the incidence of “bungalow blitz” in the North have seen a 90 per cent drop in succesful planning applications for one-off rural housing since being introduced last year.

The regulation known as Planning Policy Statement 14 (PPS 14) has cut the number of sucessful applications for single dwellings in the countryside from 5, 655 at the same time last year to about 500 this year.

The measure amounts to a blanket ban on new houses in the countryside, with only a handful of exceptions.

PPS14 was introduced in March 2006, and since then there have been 407 replacement dwellings and less then 100 in other categories like farm buildings.

This compared to 5,655 the year before the ministerial order was brought in.

Assemblyman Patsy McGlone, a long-standing opponent to the measure who obtained the latest figures, claimed people who wanted to live where they were brought up “are being denied that chance because of PPS14”.

However, Green Party assemblyman Brian Wilson said most new homeowners did not use local schools or other facilities and contributed little to the rural community.

“The vast majority of these buildings are speculative buildings. They are built on roadsides, totally destroying the countryside,” he said.

“They require septic tanks, water supplies, and the land is cut up to provide that. “Most of the people buying them are nothing to do with the countryside [but are] people moving out from the towns.”

Good to see Belfast taking the lead!

Awesome. Bravo Northern Ireland, proving it can be done.

Apparently there is a lot of concern that the new devolved goverment in NI might row back on this welcome change- freind of mine is doing his dissertation on the subject which should be interesting.

The countryside in the Republic has been destroyed.

Reading this means that it will probably happen in the North too!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0907/northhousing.html

@ake wrote:

Awesome. Bravo Northern Ireland, proving it can be done.

Great for Northern Ireland. not so great for the Republic. I can see an awful lot of Northerners who have been refused permission coming down here and taking advantage of our lax planning regulations.

@Carrigaline wrote:

Great for Northern Ireland. not so great for the Republic. I can see an awful lot of Northerners who have been refused permission coming down here and taking advantage of our lax planning regulations.

How so??

obviously our sustainable rural guidelines would hinder the vast majority from recieving permission in the republic. They may obtain permission in areas where the local authorities want to encourage population growth, but certainly not in areas under high pressure from urban develpment.

Its strange that you would have the opinion that our planning laws are lax when theres an EU commision invistigating whether they are too strict or not….. :confused:

@henno wrote:

obviously our sustainable rural guidelines would hinder the vast majority from recieving permission in the republic. They may obtain permission in areas where the local authorities want to encourage population growth, but certainly not in areas under high pressure from urban develpment.

Its strange that you would have the opinion that our planning laws are lax when theres an EU commision invistigating whether they are too strict or not….. :confused:

ROFL, LOL – clearly henno, you are trolling. Enough unsustainable one-off shite was already obliterating the country, particylarly the west coast, prior to the govt’s relaxing of planning laws about 3 years ago. When I was a child, driving west from Galway, after Barna there were occasional settlements on the coast-road. Because of the ribbon development and what I term “sub-ruralisation”, that entire stretch all the way to Carraroe is now a 60 km per hour speed restricted zone – an interesting illustrationn of how not to develop IMO.

The news from the 6 counties is depressing – the island really is on a race to the bottom in terms of environmental protection. In this case what is also interesting is the council involved in having challenged that guideline, and that the main party on the same council often tries to portray their environmental credentials… Well fellows, we can’t blame the brits on this one because of the 21 seats on Omagh council, 10 are occupied by Sinn Fein :rolleyes:

Is it just me, or is there a trend emerging here that when SF have any power, they are prone to making the anti-environment choice? I am thinking not just of Omagh, but also of SF’s dominance of DCC while presiding over the billboards scandal… :confused:

FYI – From Omagh website:

Omagh District Council was established in 1973 following the publication of the McCrory Report on the administration of local government in Northern Ireland. The plethora of Urban, Rural and County councils and Corporations which administered local government in Northern Ireland were replaced by 26 City, Borough and District Councils of which Omagh is one.

In 1973 there were 20 Councillors but following a review of local government boundaries in the early 1980’s, the number of Councillors representing the district was increased to 21.

Omagh District Council consists of three electoral areas, Omagh Town, Mid Tyrone and West Tyrone. Each of the three district electoral areas return seven councillors to serve for a four year period. The next election is due to take place in May 2009. The election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Council takes place annually in June. Details of members are as follows:

OMAGH TOWN

, Cllr Sean Begley Р(Sinn F̩in)
, Cllr Ross Hussey – (UUP)
, Cllr Josephine Deehan – (SDLP)
, Cllr Patrick McGowan MBE – (INDEPENDENT)
, Cllr Martin McColgan Р(Sinn F̩in)
, Cllr Clive McFarland – Vice Chairman of the Council – (DUP)
, Cllr Johnny McLaughlin – (INDEPENDENT)
MID TYRONE

, Cllr Sean Clarke Р(Sinn F̩in)
, Cllr Charles Chittick – (DUP)
, Cllr Sharon O’Brien – (Sinn Féin)
, Cllr Declan McAleer Р(Sinn F̩in)
, Cllr Seamus Shields – (SDLP)
, Cllr Bert Wilson – Chairman of the Council – (UUP)
, Cllr Anne Marie Fitzgerald Р(Sinn F̩in)
WEST TYRONE

, Cllr Thomas Buchanan MLA – (DUP)
, Cllr Peter Kelly Р(Sinn F̩in)
, Cllr Patrick McDonnell – (SDLP)
, Cllr Allan Rainey MBE – (UUP)
, Cllr Ann Quinn Р(Sinn F̩in)
, Cllr Frankie Donnelly Р(Sinn F̩in)
, Cllr Barry McElduff MLA Р(Sinn F̩in)

Hutton, im not trolling, and this will be my last post on this subject in this thread..

what youve described is the symptoms of a major problem, in my opinion we have the necessary procedures to deal with the problem already in place… its the managment and enforcement of these procedures that is inadequate and damaging (again, in my opinion)…… it is sad to see that these procedures are being abused in the areas most in need of these same protections.