Government backs one-off rural housing

Imposter

Originally posted by RainyDay
If the farmers can get planning permission without claiming the property is for the long-lost son returning from the big shmoke, then of course, they are entitled to sell it off as they see fit. But if they claim it is for family, it should be restricted to family. [/B]

I'd prefer if they did something similar to all those people in Tallaght and such places. Then noone there would be allowed to move and selling the house in the country wouldn't be an option as there'd be no buyers.:D

RainyDay

Originally posted by Man
Secondly what evidence do you to have to suggest that for example people living in wicklow town who work in Dublin have no roots in the community??
Or indeed their comrades who live outside the town.
That question you can answer for Navan or Naas either.

This isn't relevant - my complaint is about the fundamental dishonesty of the typical once-off housing planning request which is generally based on family reasons. Such dishonest applications should simply be rejected.

Imposter

Originally posted by RainyDay
This isn't relevant - my complaint is about the fundamental dishonesty of the typical once-off housing planning request which is generally based on family reasons. Such dishonest applications should simply be rejected.

But how do you know it isn't genuine? Surely there are some people for whom that is the genuine reason.

Originally posted by RainyDay
This isn't relevant - my complaint is about the fundamental dishonesty of the typical once-off housing planning request which is generally based on family reasons. Such dishonest applications should simply be rejected.

How do you know it's based on family reasons and what evidence do you have to make such a generalisation?
If you come down to where I live in the country I can show you plenty of examples of where farmers have sold land to completely unrelated individuals subject to planning permission. and in most cases the planning permission has been granted.
In some cases, a lot of money has been spent on architect fee's and in dealing with spurious reasons for declining the permission prior to the appeal.
One case that I know of, was refused three times because the building would be visible from the N11...It would alright with an expensive pair of binoculars:D
Indeed if you head out west, and mention An Taisce you run the risk of being lynched;)

Cork

I would be in favour of rural housing. But as family homes not as holiday homes.

The government should introduce a property tax on holiday homes. These are driving up house prices in rural Ireland and Summer Dwellers contribute little to Community.

Victor

Originally posted by Imposter
I'd prefer if they did something similar to all those people in Tallaght and such places. Then noone there would be allowed to move and selling the house in the country wouldn't be an option as there'd be no buyers.:D

What do you mean?

Originally posted by Cork
I would be in favour of rural housing.

Do you mean a 5 bedroomed bungalow 3 miles down a laneway no one can find or organised and serviced house in villages?

Cork

Originally posted by Victor
What do you mean? Do you mean a 5 bedroomed bungalow 3 miles down a laneway no one can find or organised and serviced house in villages?

People should be allowed to build where there is a road. In famine times - many settlements were up mountains. I am not purposing that.

But, when you look at the madcap development of our capital city. We need better planning than "Adamstown" and domer towns servicing a city that can't handle traffic.

The Luas is a disaster. How much money is this thing costing? Knock airport was built for about 10 million. Would that even pay the postage costs associated with Luas?? Dublin - our capital is in a state of near gridlock. Should we disallow further development of the place untill it gets it's act together?

Even, the whole population inbalance in Ireland. Do we want everybody living around Dublin?

We need regionalisation. People should be allowed to build houses that fit in to the landscape. But I am totally aganist holiday homes - such developments should be liable to a hefty property tax.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Man
How do you know it's based on family reasons and what evidence do you have to make such a generalisation?
If you come down to where I live in the country I can show you plenty of examples of where farmers have sold land to completely unrelated individuals subject to planning permission. and in most cases the planning permission has been granted.

Hi Man - I don't have any documented, solid evidence. However, I have personally come across so many cases of homes where planning permission was given for family and then the property was quickly sold-off to the highest bidder, that I am absolutely convinced that this is a fairly widespread practice. There was good coverage of this topic on RTE's 57Live show during last week too.

BTW, it is not just a rural issue. Over the weekend, I heard of two cases where permission for 'in-fill' houses in urban locations was granted for 'family reasons' which were then sold off to the highest bidder too.

Originally posted by RainyDay
However, I have personally come across so many cases of homes where planning permission was given for family and then the property was quickly sold-off to the highest bidder, that I am absolutely convinced that this is a fairly widespread practice.

But what you cannot say in all of those cases, is whether planning would also have been given on the same plot to non family members.
It would appear that from my experience, sites are being sold to strangers subject to planning permission where it can be got, all the time.

Sites have been sold by landowners for generations.
Your use of the term "the latest cash crop for farmers" is incorrect.
It's only their value that has increased, by four or five fold but then so have many peoples incomes with the exception of farmers of course.

mm

Cork

Originally posted by Man

It's only their value that has increased, by four or five fold but then so have many peoples incomes with the exception of farmers of course.

mm

Man - I agree with you - with the exception of building holiday homes. Holiday homes are a blight onthe rural environment.

Environmentalists should look at the lack of services in parts of our capital city. People spending long periods of time getting to and from work. The development of domer towns - that people choose because they might be a certain distanxe from Dublin.

Planning in our cities has not been up to stratch. The cost of putting in LUAS into Dublin is proving expensive. Yet, will it solve Dublins transport gridlock?

Yet, companies like Ebay are attracted to Dublin instead of Athlone. You see intergrated public transport systems out in Austrailia - In Dublin - We'll have the luas!.

How much more development can Dublin take? How many more "adamstowns" will it take?

We need decent decentralisation with decent regionalisation policies.

"One Off Rural Housing" is a smoke screen of a debate.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Man
But what you cannot say in all of those cases, is whether planning would also have been given on the same plot to non family members.

No - No-one could be sure of the answer to the hypothetical question. But if the family issue is not relevant, why do they bother mentioning this on the planning application at all? And why do the Anti-Taisce's make so much of the 'homes for the poor son or daughter' guff in their outpourings to the press.

Originally posted by Man

It would appear that from my experience, sites are being sold to strangers subject to planning permission where it can be got, all the time.

Really - all the time? 100% of the time. That sounds like a fairly large over-generalisation to me.

jd

Originally posted by Cork
The government should not be telling people where to live. We live in a free and open country and not in communist state.

Grand-the government shouldn't tell people where to live. However, maybe if people had to pay the full economic cost of providing services eg ESB, Telephone, sewage, water I'd have more sympathy.
And this crap about

Settlements in pre-famine Ireland were all over the place. There were more living out in the country than today. People had to walk to school.

Ireland was a backward, undeveloped country in those days. I'd guess it's not unrelated to what you have stated.

Originally posted by RainyDay

Really - all the time? 100% of the time. That sounds like a fairly large over-generalisation to me.

It's not a generalisation if you read it in context.
I said "sites are being sold to strangers subject to planning permission where it can be got, all the time".
I didn't say sites are being sold to strangers all the time.

Regarding:

But if the family issue is not relevant, why do they bother mentioning this on the planning application at all? And why do the Anti-Taisce's make so much of the 'homes for the poor son or daughter' guff in their outpourings to the press.

It is normal to mention on the planning application the person etc who is actually applying
Regarding An Taisce specifically, as long as the usual environmental rules and the affects on the visual surroundings are taken into affect, I personally don't have a problem with planning decisions.
I do have a problem where decisions are taken based on who should or should not live in a particular area, as that is a form of Rasism to be Brutally honest.
As I said earlier , it smacks of giving one person more rights than the other and that is wrong.

mm

Cork

Originally posted by jd
Grand-the government shouldn't tell people where to live. However, maybe if people had to pay the full economic cost of providing services eg ESB, Telephone, sewage, water I'd have more sympathy.

I think phone companies have to provide a universal service. The house builder usually pays for his own septic tank & there are many out the country who get water from private water schemes.

The survey in last fridays newspaper showed that people outside Sublin were paying considerably more for rubbish dispostal than their city cousins. This despite the fact that some of Dublins waste is being disposed of outside Dublin.

The arguement of provision of services being more expensive outside major towns does not really stand. We live in a pretty small country. In OZ and US - there populations are dispersed - Yet in Ireland the provision of services is a big issue.

jd

Originally posted by Cork
I think phone companies have to provide a universal service.

As do the ESB..
But the point is people should pay the full economic cost of providing the service, USO or not, otherwise everybody else is subsidising the cost.

Cork

Originally posted by jd
As do the ESB..
But the point is people should pay the full economic cost of providing the service, USO or not, otherwise everybody else is subsidising the cost.

Eircom is a private company. This is a small country. It is not like ESB or Eircom are bring out lones far away from the nearest outpost/

jd

Originally posted by Cork
Eircom is a private company. This is a small country. It is not like ESB or Eircom are bring out lones far away from the nearest outpost/

Well then, it shouldn't be too expensive for the householders to pay the full economic cost of the lines

Victor

Originally posted by Cork
The arguement of provision of services being more expensive outside major towns does not really stand. We live in a pretty small country. In OZ and US - there populations are dispersed - Yet in Ireland the provision of services is a big issue.

Actually both the USA and Australia have much more urban populations than Ireland - nearly everybody lives in towns and very, very few live in the country.

Imposter

Originally posted by Victor
What do you mean?

'Twas tongue in cheek but:
I mean that all the houses that go on sale and new estates that are built thbetween 30 to 60 miles of dublin are being bought mostly by dubliners who want to escape the worst areas of dublin. As a result locals can't afford the housing as pay in Dublin is generally higher. These people then commute to Dublin and spend a lot of their money in Dublin. Thus generally being the same dubliner but living in a (slightly) safer environment, and thus causing some friction with sections of the local community.

These one off houses are sometimes the only way these locals can afford a house in their area. For them to realise that it's worth more than it was when they built it and then sell it a few years later is bound to happen, just like in the case of the Jackeen above who realises they can have a better standard of living than they currently have if the sell their house and relocate or build another. That doesn't mean I agree with building these one off houses just to sell it asap. It's just that this is what seems to be happening where i'm from.

Imposter

Originally posted by jd
Well then, it shouldn't be too expensive for the householders to pay the full economic cost of the lines

Or too expensive for Dubliner's to pay for their own waste (which should be dumped in their own landfills), or too expensive for Dubliners to pay the full costs of public transport ('cause there ain't the same 'service' - as bad as it is in Dublin - in rural areas).