One off housing...

dttq

Nothing wrong with houses in the countryside, its the oldest global housing pattern, towns and cities are relatively new in our evolution. My two major problems with rural housing in this country is first of all, that most built in the last 40 years seem have been built by lazily browsing through a house build catalouge as opposed to been designed by a professional to sit the landscape, whether in the older vernacular style or more modern architecture. My second problem, and perhaps biggest problem with modern 1970s and up housing in this country is that zero effort is made to both integrate the building after it is built, or in screening it from the road. As opposed to laying native hedges, and planting trees etc. most house owners just seem to keep a large area of grass which is mowed without any vegetation, and throw up fencing at the roadside.

In saying that, I would have to say that most of what has been built in urban Ireland in recent decades is equally horrible. Many small and formerly beautiful towns throughout Leinster have been mauled and ruined by sterile and frankly ugly estates. We need to cop on in this country when it comes to planning and architecture, particularly as a major component of our image abroad is that of an attractive and green land.

Nothingbetter2d

Clareboy wrote: »

I often hear rural dwellers speak about the importance of ' frontage ' , that is land with road frontage so that sites can be sold an' lots of money made. Indeed, many a young farmer's marriage prospects would depend on whether he has land with frontage. So boys, you got to have frontage, sure backage is no bloody good at all!

With that kind of mentality so prevalent, its no wonder that our country is in it's present chaotic state. In Ireland, a piece of land land is seen first and foremost as a potential building site rather than a place to produce food.

you cannot get planning on a site without either road frontage or a private access lane. the reason for this is to due to Sight Distances.

Sight Distances is the distance you can see an on coming vehicle from either direction of the entrance gate. On rural boreéns it needs to be a minimum sight distance of 80 metres each side on L Class roads a minimum of 90m on R Class roads a minimum of 120m and on N class roads a minimum of 160m.

this is why road frontage is so important.

derb12

dttq wrote: »

Nothing wrong with houses in the countryside, its the oldest global housing pattern, towns and cities are relatively new in our evolution.

Can you give a source for that? I would have thought that villages or settlements of multiple families have always been the norm throughout our evolution.
Just returned from Germany where you can drive for miles between villages and just have country roads with the odd large farm house in between. To me that makes so much more sense. They don't seem to go in for the Irish "each to their own" attitude which leads to the feeling of entitlement to build a home wherever they choose.
Everything from provision of utilities, emergency access, school buses etc are so much easier and cheaper when people live in groups.
And for a really unpopular opinion, I also don't see why people should have an automatic entitlement to build a home on their parents rural land. I couldn't afford to buy a house where I grew up so I had to just settle elsewhere, buying a house that was already built that suited my needs. I didn't ask my parents to slice off part of their urban garden so I could build my dream house to live in.

starbelgrade

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

you cannot get planning on a site without either road frontage or a private access lane.

Not strictly true. You can if you add a new access point onto a road as long as the new access point complies with the required sight distances in accordance with the speed limit for the road. There are also a few other requirements which must be met in terms of step-backs & distances from junctions etc., but essentially there is nothing to stop you building a house in a field without road frontage once all the other planning and development requirements are met.

The only difficulty in getting planning for a house to site which does not have any existing access occurs when the proposed access point is onto a national road. In these cases, the NRA will object to the planning on the grounds of road safety and 9 times out of 10, the county manager will side with the NRA & recommend a refusal for planning.

Nothingbetter2d

starbelgrade wrote: »

Not strictly true. You can if you add a new access point onto a road as long as the new access point complies with the required sight distances in accordance with the speed limit for the road. There are also a few other requirements which must be met in terms of step-backs & distances from junctions etc., but essentially there is nothing to stop you building a house in a field without road frontage once all the other planning and development requirements are met.

The only difficulty in getting planning for a house to site which does not have any existing access occurs when the proposed access point is onto a national road. In these cases, the NRA will object to the planning on the grounds of road safety and 9 times out of 10, the county manager will side with the NRA & recommend a refusal for planning.

yes but its very expensive to lay a tarmac road that meets with NRA standards. its much cheaper to buy a site with road frontage.

starbelgrade

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

yes but its very expensive to lay a tarmac road that meets with NRA standards. its much cheaper to buy a site with road frontage.

An access road to a site doesn't have to comply with NRA standards.

Nothingbetter2d

starbelgrade wrote: »

An access road to a site doesn't have to comply with NRA standards.

it does where it meets an N or R class road.

the junction has to meet NRA standards.

starbelgrade

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

it does where it meets an N or R class road.

the junction has to meet NRA standards.

On regional roads the junction does but not the entire access road.

derb12

derb12 wrote: »

I also don't see why people should have an automatic entitlement to build a home on their parents rural land. I couldn't afford to buy a house where I grew up so I had to just settle elsewhere, buying a house that was already built that suited my needs. I didn't ask my parents to slice off part of their urban garden so I could build my dream house to live in.

Of course you should be allowed to as its your own land ffs and any parent would be glad to give a half acre or more to their sons or daughters. Some people would also like to build a house to exactly the spec they chose at some point in their live rather than making do with some standard design that doesn't fit with what a person would like.

You cant compare to your situation as you didn't own multiple acres of land around your house so the situation could never arise.

Nothingbetter2d

starbelgrade wrote: »

On regional roads the junction does but not the entire access road.

yes but even laying an NRA standard road junction will set ya back a few thousand + ya need a road opening license from the council in order to put in any drainage & power cables for public lighting on that junction not to mention having to pay ESB for the that to be done. a sodium lamp and pole will set ya back at least a thousand, not including installation fees. NRA standard road signage isn't cheap either.

derb12

derb12 wrote: »

I also don't see why people should have an automatic entitlement to build a home on their parents rural land. I couldn't afford to buy a house where I grew up so I had to just settle elsewhere, buying a house that was already built that suited my needs. I didn't ask my parents to slice off part of their urban garden so I could build my dream house to live in.

Why do you not agree with people building on their parents land?
You had to make do so everyone else has to?

Clareboy

The offspring of farmers and rural landowners should not have the right to build new one off houses on their parent's land. What they usually do is sell off the site when they get the planning permission or sell the newly constructed house to a 3rd party.

If the offspring of rural landowners wish to live near their parents, why not just extend the original family home or buy a house that is for sale in the area. Why does it always have to be a new one off house on a green field site?

derb12

Maison Ripe Evergreen wrote: »

Of course you should be allowed to as its your own land ffs and any parent would be glad to give a half acre or more to their sons or daughters.

You say this as if it is some sort of basic principle of life. I disagree. How about the fact that so many little houses blight the landscape for others. Is it just too bad for the general public? If everyone in the country is able to build a house to their own spec just because they own an acre of land with frontage we would have no stretches of countryside without houses.

Maison Ripe Evergreen wrote: »

Some people would also like to build a house to exactly the spec they chose at some point in their live rather than making do with some standard design that doesn't fit with what a person would like.

Again some people might like this but does that mean that the rest of the people have to put up with it blotting the landscape. It's evident from this thread that people have widely differing views on what is acceptable in house appearance and what is considered an eyesore. Most people agree that fields of agricultural land look nice.

Maison Ripe Evergreen wrote: »

You cant compare to your situation as you didn't own multiple acres of land around your house so the situation could never arise.

My parents own the land. They are not allowed to build another little house on it for me as it would contribute to an overall cluttering of the site.

Deleted User wrote: »

Why do you not agree with people building on their parents land?
You had to make do so everyone else has to?

If, by building their house they are destroying a local landscape, then absolutely yes - they should have to "make do". What is the alternative - everybody should be able to get exactly the house they want in exactly the place they want, regardless of the impact on the landscape?

starbelgrade

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

yes but even laying an NRA standard road junction will set ya back a few thousand + ya need a road opening license from the council in order to put in any drainage & power cables for public lighting on that junction not to mention having to pay ESB for the that to be done. a sodium lamp and pole will set ya back at least a thousand, not including installation fees. NRA standard road signage isn't cheap either.

I honestly don't know where you're getting the idea that you need to comply with NRA standards in order to form an entrance to a site fora house other than a national road. It simply isn't the case. And in general it is usually the case that planning for a new site entrance to a house on a national road will be refused.

I have designed tonnes of houses on local and regional roads. None of them have required road opening licences for anything other than drainage pipes and none of them have required sodium lighting or NRA road signage.

Your posts have me very confused.

mikemac1

Putting large estates with Section 23 taxbreaks into small villages is a far larger problem then this one off housing

Some will be knocked

And some will be turned over to social housing and while it's good to reduce waiting list, moving 20 or 30 families to a small village where there is no transport, no jobs apart from the petrol station, no garda station and no post office will be a disaster.

There is a church and 3 pubs though


Towns can cope with new local authority estates, not small villages

Clareboy

Clareboy wrote: »

The offspring of farmers and rural landowners should not have the right to build new one off houses on their parent's land. What they usually do is sell off the site when they get the planning permission or sell the newly constructed house to a 3rd party.

If the offspring of rural landowners wish to live near their parents, why not just extend the original family home or buy a house that is for sale in the area. Why does it always have to be a new one off house on a green field site?

The recent trend of building on "family land" is coming to an end, due to the fact that the economic conditions that made it possible have ended!

The next couple of decades is likely to see migration from the countryside into the cities where people work, long commutes into the town after the next town will soon be a thing of th past due to the high costs of fuel.

Clareboy

Clareboy wrote: »

The offspring of farmers and rural landowners should not have the right to build new one off houses on their parent's land. What they usually do is sell off the site when they get the planning permission or sell the newly constructed house to a 3rd party.

Put a stipulation in the planning that the person building the house has to live in it for "x" number of years, this is already happening in many cases.

Clareboy wrote: »

If the offspring of rural landowners wish to live near their parents, why not just extend the original family home or buy a house that is for sale in the area. Why does it always have to be a new one off house on a green field site?

Nonsensical suggestion, you would need to double the size of the house for starters which would be difficult to do with out leaving the whole thing looking a mess and what about both the parents and their son/daughter each having their own space especially if the son/daughter has a family of their own.

derb12 wrote: »

You say this as if it is some sort of basic principle of life. I disagree. How about the fact that so many little houses blight the landscape for others. Is it just too bad for the general public? If everyone in the country is able to build a house to their own spec just because they own an acre of land with frontage we would have no stretches of countryside without houses.

Owning something generally gives you the right to do what you want with it within reason, so yes I would say it is a basic principal of life. Also when I say to my own spec I obviously dont mean I can build exactly what I want I mean work with an architect/engineer etc to build something which meets my requirements but meets what ever planning restrictions are in place and also build something which looks good. The chances are if you own land you will get planning (where I live anyway) your last point above appears to suggest very few get it.

derb12 wrote: »

Again some people might like this but does that mean that the rest of the people have to put up with it blotting the landscape. It's evident from this thread that people have widely differing views on what is acceptable in house appearance and what is considered an eyesore. Most people agree that fields of agricultural land look nice.

Why should a person who drives out a country road once a year have a say in what people do with their own land, I don't see how or why they should. Its more or less tough luck to them. There are still plenty of fields to look at, trust me a huge amount of houses were build around me over the last few years and there are still much more views of fields than houses. I do agree that houses should be properly designed though.

derb12 wrote: »

My parents own the land. They are not allowed to build another little house on it for me as it would contribute to an overall cluttering of the site.

This is a regulation and I wont argue with that, but if your parents had sufficient land then they most likely would get planning.

derb12 wrote: »

If, by building their house they are destroying a local landscape, then absolutely yes - they should have to "make do". What is the alternative - everybody should be able to get exactly the house they want in exactly the place they want, regardless of the impact on the landscape?

If by landscape you mean something historic or particularly special view then I agree a house shouldn't be built on that exact site but if you are calling a normal field used for grazing animals and cutting silage with that is no different to 1000 other fields and that is maybe 10 acres and only 1 acre will be taken for a site then I don't agree at all.

starbelgrade

Maison Ripe Evergreen wrote: »

Why should a person who drives out a country road once a year have a say in what people do with their own land, I don't see how or why they should.

Because proper planning & development is partly a public process. The public get a right to make submissions not only on local development plans but also on your planning application.

That is why you advertise your application in the newspaper - because you are seeking the permission of not only the local authority, but of all the relevant governmental bodies, private companies, people of the public etc etc etc who may wish to have their say on what you intend to build.

If you think that owning a piece of land automatically gives you the right to build on it without anyone having the right to make a case against it, then I am afraid that it is your tough luck.

starbelgrade

starbelgrade wrote: »

Because proper planning & development is partly a public process. The public get a right to make submissions not only on local development plans but also on your planning application.

That is why you advertise your application in the newspaper - because you are seeking the permission of not only the local authority, but of all the relevant governmental bodies, private companies, people of the public etc etc etc who may wish to have their say on what you intend to build.

If you think that owning a piece of land automatically gives you the right to build on it without anyone having the right to make a case against it, then I am afraid that it is your tough luck.

Of course people who live around the area will be informed, though from my experience neighbours etc don't stir the s*it when people look for planning, mainly as they will most likely be doing the same themselves at some point. On the other hand someone passing down the road once a year and complaining about a few houses has and should have no say.

I also agree that there are regulations and stipulations that will have to be met on size, shape even things like number of windows etc but after these are met then a person should be allowed to build.

I worked for a construction company during the summers a few years ago and I know its not overly difficult to get planning in my area, I also have two very close friends in the very late stages of planning (they more or less have it) and neither had much difficulty. Personally I don't know anyone who was outright refused planning and off the top of my head I cant even think of anyone who was particularly inconvenienced by any particular stipulations.

Clareboy

Deleted User wrote: »

The recent trend of building on "family land" is coming to an end, due to the fact that the economic conditions that made it possible have ended!

The next couple of decades is likely to see migration from the countryside into the cities where people work, long commutes into the town after the next town will soon be a thing of th past due to the high costs of fuel.

Unfortunately, irreparable damage has been done to our countryside and once a landscape has been destroyed by the forces of greed and ignorance, it is destroyed for all time. Yes fuel prices are rising and will continue to rise into the future. When the oil runs out, who would want to live miles from basic amenities?

Nothingbetter2d

Clareboy wrote: »

Unfortunately, irreparable damage has been done to our countryside and once a landscape has been destroyed by the forces of greed and ignorance, it is destroyed for all time. Yes fuel prices are rising and will continue to rise into the future. When the oil runs out, who would want to live miles from basic amenities?

but we have the means to replace oil based fuels, ethanol for one :rolleyes:

MysticalRain

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

but we have the means to replace oil based fuels, ethanol for one :rolleyes:

It won't be that easy to produce it if all the farmland is snapped up for housing.

Birdnuts

Nothingbetter2d wrote: »

but we have the means to replace oil based fuels, ethanol for one :rolleyes:

Displacement of food crops for ethanol production is already leading to higher food prices in many parts of the world, it has also led to the accellerated destruction of rainforest and other carbon sinks in a number of countries - biofuels are bit of con in that regards.

eth0

Birdnuts wrote: »

Displacement of food crops for ethanol production is already leading to higher food prices in many parts of the world - biofuels are bit of con in that regards.

The ethanol produced in ireland is made from whey which would be going to waste otherwise. A lot of biofuels are byproducts, growing stuff specifically for the fuel isn't a brilliant idea

Birdnuts

eth0 wrote: »

The ethanol produced in ireland is made from whey which would be going to waste otherwise.

I've no problem with that aspect - the problem is the fact that over a third of the US corn crop is now being used to produce ethanol. Plus foreign corporations and corrupt governments in Africa are kicking native people off their land and destroying vast areas of natural habitats to grow biofuels. It is one of the main factors behind foreign land grabbing on the continent involving at least 20 million hectares so far:(

InTheTrees

Birdnuts wrote: »

the problem is the fact that over a third of the US corn crop is now being used to produce ethanol. Plus foreign corporations and corrupt governments in Africa are kicking native people off their land and destroying vast areas of natural habitats to grow biofuels.

Rising food prices are great for the Irish farmers surely?

Birdnuts

InTheTrees wrote: »

Rising food prices are great for the Irish farmers surely?

To an extent - but like property bubbles, it will lead to inflation in other sectors of the economy as wages will have to rise to afford spiralling food prices, which will eventually hit farmers too. Plus it would be devastating on the billions of people around the world who survive on barely a dollar a day leading to widespread hunger and instability in many countries.

eth0

Birdnuts wrote: »

I've no problem with that aspect - the problem is the fact that over a third of the US corn crop is now being used to produce ethanol. Plus foreign corporations and corrupt governments in Africa are kicking native people off their land and destroying vast areas of natural habitats to grow biofuels. It is one of the main factors behind foreign land grabbing on the continent involving at least 20 million hectares so far:(

Those lads are not up to much good, producing ethanol from corn is fairly low yield anyway but thats only done so the americans can keep up their hugely wasteful lifestyle that makes us look like militant environmentalists

MysticalRain

MysticalRain wrote: »

It won't be that easy to produce it if all the farmland is snapped up for housing.

Yeah because a few half acre sites taken from 20 acre fields are going to have a big impact on crop production :rolleyes:

You really should say nothing when you know nothing.

LH Pathe

I agree, more houses for the one-offs in this life. The once in a blue moons, there can't be that many to accommodate - to shell out for. Set them up in a place, there