Local Needs Exemptions

Eric Cartman

So I grew up in a housing estate in North Kildare. I currently rent in the area and have done for the past decade. I have literally no interest in living in a housing estate or village. I always wanted to build my own house on a site.

The problem for me seems to occur with local needs planning, There are some sites available within the distance, but I did not grow up in the 'rural community' and there are also some sites outside the radius that are far cheaper.

Is there any way of me legally (no grey area tricks or lies or false applications) getting an exemption from local needs to build a house.

If there are not, can anyone suggest whats the bare minimum on a site required that I could apply for 'replacement dwelling' permission and build that way.

quadrifoglio verde

Find a country girl with a bit of road frontage.

It is quite difficult though. My boss bought an old cottage and bulldozed it. Council wouldn't even let him build a dormer as the lane had some 1940s cottages on it and a dormer wasnt in keeping with the area.

Really unless you've grown up on a farm and building on it, or marrying into that, an old bungalow with a decent and site might be the way to go.

trobbin

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Find a country girl with a bit of road frontage.

It is quite difficult though. My boss bought an old cottage and bulldozed it. Council wouldn't even let him build a dormer as the lane had some 1940s cottages on it and a dormer wasnt in keeping with the area.

Really unless you've grown up on a farm and building on it, or marrying into that, an old bungalow with a decent and site might be the way to go.

AFAIK there's know way around local needs. It's a silly rule anyway, it actually sounds like discrimination by the county councils. Surely that'd never happen in Ireland.

davindub

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So I grew up in a housing estate in North Kildare. I currently rent in the area and have done for the past decade. I have literally no interest in living in a housing estate or village. I always wanted to build my own house on a site.

The problem for me seems to occur with local needs planning, There are some sites available within the distance, but I did not grow up in the 'rural community' and there are also some sites outside the radius that are far cheaper.

Is there any way of me legally (no grey area tricks or lies or false applications) getting an exemption from local needs to build a house.

If there are not, can anyone suggest whats the bare minimum on a site required that I could apply for 'replacement dwelling' permission and build that way.

There should be a new development plan 2017. I doubt they have removed the local needs criteria though, there are versions of this throughout the country.

Unfortunately, the councils persist with this (Kildare actually only introduced local needs in 2011) despite a EU ruling on 2007 that it was illegal to restrict building to locals only. Might be worth sending a letter to the council before the plan is released.

Other than that, the replacement dwellings clause is restricted to local needs. You can refurbish a derelict house, but the walls must be intact.

newacc2015

trobbin wrote: »

AFAIK there's know way around local needs. It's a silly rule anyway, it actually sounds like discrimination by the county councils. Surely that'd never happen in Ireland.

It is not a silly rule. In fact I dont think anyone local or not should be allowed to live in rural areas. Everyone should at least live in villages. If you go to Germany or the Netherlands, one off housing is few and far between. You will drive for kilometers and not see a house. Then suddenly you will come to a village of a few hundred houses. Germany and Netherlands have superior services outside of towns and cities, as housing is planned in such a manner, that you can provide services to these areas.

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

I know people who lived in mobile homes for years to claim being local.

pablo128

Rubbish. I worked in rural Holland and there were one off houses around the place.

Lumen

newacc2015 wrote: »

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

Those costs are sunk and unless you're going to demolish the houses already out there every new house makes those services more efficient to deliver.

Mrs OBumble

OP do you actually want to be a farmer and make your living from the land?

If so then i have some sympathy for your challenge - But the real question is how yor can afford a farm ....

trobbin

newacc2015 wrote: »

It is not a silly rule. In fact I dont think anyone local or not should be allowed to live in rural areas. Everyone should at least live in villages. If you go to Germany or the Netherlands, one off housing is few and far between. You will drive for kilometers and not see a house. Then suddenly you will come to a village of a few hundred houses. Germany and Netherlands have superior services outside of towns and cities, as housing is planned in such a manner, that you can provide services to these areas.

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

I know people who lived in mobile homes for years to claim being local.

In an ideal Ireland you're correct. I also agree with most of your points. However, when I called it a silly discriminatory rule, I was referring to the fact that person A is allowed build while person B isn't, that's the problem.

Of course rural Ireland should be preserved, but it should be one rule for all. Places like Rush and Lusk have LN, and they've lost their rural standing long ago.

newacc2015

newacc2015 wrote: »

It is not a silly rule. In fact I dont think anyone local or not should be allowed to live in rural areas. Everyone should at least live in villages. If you go to Germany or the Netherlands, one off housing is few and far between. You will drive for kilometers and not see a house. Then suddenly you will come to a village of a few hundred houses. Germany and Netherlands have superior services outside of towns and cities, as housing is planned in such a manner, that you can provide services to these areas.

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

I know people who lived in mobile homes for years to claim being local.

A lot of people don't want to live in villages or estates. They want space, room for large multi car garages, proper sized 4 or 5 bedroomed houses with lots of space around for garden, parking etc. They want a house built to the way they would like, laid out how they want and to the specifications they want not one build the same as next door and lacking lots of the features many people want. People also want privacy and be able to play loud music or have a party or what ever and not need to worry about annoying neighbours or vice versa and not be annoyed by neighbours. Just becuse you are happy to live in urban areas does not mean others are and urban dwellers should have no say whatsoever on where others decide to live.

Having grown up and lived most of my live in a very rural area and spent the last few years in an urban area there is simply no comparison rural life is far superior and I couldn't see myself settling down properly anywhere except rural. Bringing up kids etc is so much better also in a rural setting, I had such a brilliant childhood that most of what I did would have been impossible living urban.

Alun

pablo128 wrote: »

Rubbish. I worked in rural Holland and there were one off houses around the place.

I lived there for a number of years too, and I'd be fairly certain the majority of those were farms, or else legacy properties built before they implemented proper planning procedures. There's no way on earth you'd get permission to build a new house in such areas these days.

Eric Cartman

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

OP do you actually want to be a farmer and make your living from the land?

If so then i have some sympathy for your challenge - But the real question is how yor can afford a farm ....

Im not looking for 20, 50, 100+ acres, im talking about a 1 acre site to put a house on, not running a farm or keeping horses, just something thats atleast 50-100 meters away from another house on all sides.

ThisRegard

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

Bringing up kids etc is so much better also in a rural setting, I had such a brilliant childhood that most of what I did would have been impossible living urban.

It's for another thread altogether but I think that's debatable. When recently buying our house we intend to be in until at least retirement we had this discussion for a long time before finally deciding to go for a best of both worlds type approach. Ultimately we thought it better for us and the kids not to be living in a completely rural setting, and my wife couldn't have grown up in a more rural area.

FishOnABike

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not looking for 20, 50, 100+ acres, im talking about a 1 acre site to put a house on, not running a farm or keeping horses, just something thats at least 50-100 meters away from another house on all sides.

That's either much more than an acre or there's nothing to stop another house being built a few feet away on an adjacent site in future.

Eric Cartman

FishOnABike wrote: »

That's either much more than an acre or there's nothing to stop another house being built a few feet away on an adjacent site in future.

Im going to assume that somebody buying an adjacent parcel of land would also build in the middle of their parcel , also theres ribbon development rules may help

JimmyMW

Eric Cartman wrote: »

So I grew up in a housing estate in North Kildare. I currently rent in the area and have done for the past decade. I have literally no interest in living in a housing estate or village. I always wanted to build my own house on a site.

The problem for me seems to occur with local needs planning, There are some sites available within the distance, but I did not grow up in the 'rural community' and there are also some sites outside the radius that are far cheaper.

Is there any way of me legally (no grey area tricks or lies or false applications) getting an exemption from local needs to build a house.

If there are not, can anyone suggest whats the bare minimum on a site required that I could apply for 'replacement dwelling' permission and build that way.

Are you currently renting inside or outside the development boundary, if you were renting in the rural zone for the past decade I'm pretty sure you would qualify for a local housing need, within that rural zone.

riclad

i know someone who bought a large house 60 years old, in a rural area,
knocked it down and built a new house.
The new house is built to look like an old house,
with victorian style doors and windows .Theres old cottages for sale in most
area,s that need renovation .
Theres almost no blocks or bricks used in the exterior walls .
Just stones and cement .

SarahMollie

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

A lot of people don't want to live in villages or estates. They want space, room for large multi car garages, proper sized 4 or 5 bedroomed houses with lots of space around for garden, parking etc. They want a house built to the way they would like, laid out how they want and to the specifications they want not one build the same as next door and lacking lots of the features many people want. People also want privacy and be able to play loud music or have a party or what ever and not need to worry about annoying neighbours or vice versa and not be annoyed by neighbours. Just becuse you are happy to live in urban areas does not mean others are and urban dwellers should have no say whatsoever on where others decide to live.

I totally disagree. The wants of individuals are not important IMO. Much of rural ireland has been blighted by one off housing and that actually ruins the landscape for the majority.

If you go to the south of England, areas within the reach of London, I never cease to be amazed at how they've managed to preserve large areas of green space so close to a major world city. People live in semi rural towns and villiages therefore availing of public services in an efficient manor.

In contrast, Ireland is blighted by one off dwellings, because people feel entitled to build where they grew up, to the determent of the country overall. The same people will moan about broadband, local hospital closures, lack of transport services etc, but the reality is the state has to prioritize for the greater good, and until Irish people learn that that means a proper planning strategy we will continue to pay too much for basic services.

Just because a person wants to build a big house in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean they should be allowed to. The betterment of the country ought to come before the wants of any individual. In my view, these rules aren't strict enough.

SarahMollie

SarahMollie wrote: »

I totally disagree. The wants of individuals are not important IMO. Much of rural ireland has been blighted by one off housing and that actually ruins the landscape for the majority.

If you go to the south of England, areas within the reach of London, I never cease to be amazed at how they've managed to preserve large areas of green space so close to a major world city. People live in semi rural towns and villiages therefore availing of public services in an efficient manor.

In contrast, Ireland is blighted by one off dwellings, because people feel entitled to build where they grew up, to the determent of the country overall. The same people will moan about broadband, local hospital closures, lack of transport services etc, but the reality is the state has to prioritize for the greater good, and until Irish people learn that that means a proper planning strategy we will continue to pay too much for basic services.

Just because a person wants to build a big house in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean they should be allowed to. The betterment of the country ought to come before the wants of any individual. In my view, these rules aren't strict enough.

In other words it won't impact on me so it shouldn't be allowed. There is plenty of landscape to see in Ireland what are you going to be doing down a boreen in an area away from tourist areas that peoples homes are going to bother you.

Sure lets stop people building homes on their own land where they are beside family and the farm they will most likely be running in future and force them into towns where they have to drive out to drop their kids for minding and drive to do work on the farm. Madness, whatever about people not from the area it can and should never be introduced that people cannot build on their own land, its would be absolutely stupid and unfair along with very costly for those who have land to build on rather than have to buy it.

And for what so you can look into a field when you are passing by, or not passing by as most of these houses are build on dead end roads of no interest to tourist but very important for people to live.

As far as services are concerned BB etc is being rolled out to all rural areas already and the more people that avail of it the better. Its needed by farmers anyway and these have to live in the country so the fact a lot more people will use it makes it a much better investment.

Just to add not everywhere has a local needs rule, there is no such rule in place in my home county, anyone can buy a site and build there. Not that it will effect me when I go to build as I has I would qualify for it anyway.

Lumen

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im not looking for 20, 50, 100+ acres, im talking about a 1 acre site to put a house on, not running a farm or keeping horses, just something thats atleast 50-100 meters away from another house on all sides.

FishOnABike wrote: »

That's either much more than an acre or there's nothing to stop another house being built a few feet away on an adjacent site in future.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Im going to assume that somebody buying an adjacent parcel of land would also build in the middle of their parcel , also theres ribbon development rules may help

Houses tend not to be in the centre of sites for all sorts of reasons - drainage, sight lines, trees, soil.

I'm on 0.8/acre and the distances from external house walls to those of the surrounding houses/road are about 50m, 25m, 30m, 35m.

If the neighbours were noisy I'd hear them (they're not).

Humans are programmed to adjust to their surroundings. It's amazing how quickly I adjusted to the quiet and became supersensitive to noise.

tldr: if you want seclusion you need a few acres off a quiet road.

SarahMollie

Milo Fresh Summer wrote: »

In other words it won't impact on me so it shouldn't be allowed. There is plenty of landscape to see in Ireland what are you going to be doing down a boreen in an area away from tourist areas that peoples homes are going to bother you.

Sure lets stop people building homes on their own land where they are beside family and the farm they will most likely be running in future and force them into towns where they have to drive out to drop their kids for minding and drive to do work on the farm. Madness, whatever about people not from the area it can and should never be introduced that people cannot build on their own land, its would be absolutely stupid and unfair along with very costly for those who have land to build on rather than have to buy it.

And for what so you can look into a field when you are passing by, or not passing by as most of these houses are build on dead end roads of no interest to tourist but very important for people to live.

As far as services are concerned BB etc is being rolled out to all rural areas already and the more people that avail of it the better. Its needed by farmers anyway and these have to live in the country so the fact a lot more people will use it makes it a much better investment.

Just to add not everywhere has a local needs rule, there is no such rule in place in my home county, anyone can buy a site and build there. Not that it will effect me when I go to build as I has I would qualify for it anyway.

When you compair Ireland with other countries, its apparent that people have built anywhere and everywhere, without any strategy. Of course if the decision is left to the individual, then they're going to suit themselves, but thats why policy needs to come at a national level, to prevent such me-fein-ism

If a person is going to take over a farm, why not then take over the farmhouse? Why does each generation have to build more and more one off dwellings. Its fairly common for multiple adult children from the same family to each build on separate portions of the same land. Why does the number of dwellings constantly have to increase? If they must all build, why can it not be organised so that they create their own little hamlet of sorts? But no, everyone must build a house on their own acre of land and therefore continually increase the number of blots on the landscape.

Peoples individual rights (regardless of where they are from) should not trump the rights of the greater population to a well organised and well planned country with efficient services.

By the way, services provided in many such areas are subject to subventions by the tax payer. If people want to live in isolation, let them then foot the real cost/and or deal with the realities of not having services when its not economical for them to be provided. I can certainly think of areas where that money could be better spent rather than encouraging one off housing.

Lumen

SarahMollie wrote: »

Why does the number of dwellings constantly have to increase? If they must all build, why can it not be organised so that they create their own little hamlet of sorts? But no, everyone must build a house on their own acre of land and therefore continually increase the number of blots on the landscape.

Blots on the landscape? This is Kildare. You can't see any landscape unless you're in a helicopter.

And the "blot" is only a "blot" if it's ugly and unsympathetically designed, which is an architecture/landscaping problem not a dwelling distribution problem.

Look at this ugly McVilla, for instance. Shocking blot on the landscape.

Arcade_Tryer

newacc2015 wrote: »

Building low density in rural areas is not sustainable. It is not efficient to deliver services to these one off houses. The taxpayer is funding a unsustainable lifestyle. You can provide broadband or public transport in a cost effective manner with 5/10 people living in a square kilometer.

Lots of rural dwellers pay for their water usage through rural water schemes, so in that sense they're in fact way ahead of the efficient, sustainable living urban dwellers. People should be allowed to live in one off dwellings. They should just have to pay for the privilege. And of course planning regulations should prevent obviously obscene building.

If people have the money, and are willing to spend it on rural one off housing, then surely charging them significantly more for those services you mention and additional property and land tax, is more beneficial to society than preventing them from building because you want to see an extra field among the thousands when you visit the countryside? Seems more like bitterness than any aim towards efficiency and preserving the landscape.

Let them build. And let them pay for it.

Eric Cartman

Lumen wrote: »

Houses tend not to be in the centre of sites for all sorts of reasons - drainage, sight lines, trees, soil.

I'm on 0.8/acre and the distances from external house walls to those of the surrounding houses/road are about 50m, 25m, 30m, 35m.

If the neighbours were noisy I'd hear them (they're not).

Humans are programmed to adjust to their surroundings. It's amazing how quickly I adjusted to the quiet and became supersensitive to noise.

tldr: if you want seclusion you need a few acres off a quiet road.

hmm, I take your point onboard. I may have to adjust some plans for more space. Realistically I'm not talking about holding a music festival in a garden, but I'm not going to buy a house where my ability to use an angle grinder or listen to an album with the bass up full is dictated by somebody who is not in my family's sleeping pattern.

Victor

Eric Cartman wrote: »

hmm, I take your point onboard. I may have to adjust some plans for more space. Realistically I'm not talking about holding a music festival in a garden, but I'm not going to buy a house where my ability to use an angle grinder or listen to an album with the bass up full is dictated by somebody who is not in my family's sleeping pattern.

What's wrong with living on a big site near a town or village?

the_syco

Victor wrote: »

What's wrong with living on a big site near a town or village?

Price. Land near a town or village is often priced to be sold to a developer.

Eric Cartman

Victor wrote: »

What's wrong with living on a big site near a town or village?

As above , price, for pub access id love an acre or 2 that was 5 mins from the bus stop and pub, realistically those sites are 3x the price if not more as theyd fit a whole housing estate in them.

I currently rent a house thats one of only 2 on a 2 acre site , 10 mins walk to the village centre , the sute on its own would cost about 1 million where it is.

Im looking to spend <150k

Victor

Is this a case of wanting your cake and eating it?

Eric Cartman

Victor wrote: »

Is this a case of wanting your cake and eating it?

Well i know i cant have space, village access and cheap, so ive decided to give up on village access, I can have space and cheap, except for this planning speedbump

hytrogen

Emmaline Pitiful Sugarcane wrote:

Having grown up and lived most of my live in a very rural area and spent the last few years in an urban area there is simply no comparison rural life is far superior and I couldn't see myself settling down properly anywhere except rural. Bringing up kids etc is so much better also in a rural setting, I had such a brilliant childhood that most of what I did would have been impossible living urban.

Cow tipping?

Eric Cartman look we all want the pearly white fencing around out enclave in isolation, away from the noisy neighbours teenage durtbag garage band practicing at all hours but realistically the human impact and footprint we've made on the countryside is unsustainable.
TV has sold us this impossible aspiration through travel program and property shows. The grass isn't always as greener, especially later on in life when you'd like to borrow that bowl of sugar off the neighbours a mile down the road and you're with your zimmer frame or when the kids grow up, move to work in the big smoke and don't come to visit anymore..
Human nature is social interaction as well as own space needs, finding the right balanced is the aspiration.

Lumen

hytrogen wrote: »

realistically the human impact and footprint we've made on the countryside is unsustainable

The countryside is mostly a big green factory running on oil.

I don't think a few extra houses make a lot of difference.