easing of one-off housing rules

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

Says who? You? The IDA? MBNA?

The CSO.

oscarBravo wrote:

Probably an unsustainable rate.

Not according to the CSO: Regional Population Projections.

oscarBravo

Maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm seeing from CSO are projected population numbers by region. I don't see anything to suggest that Dublin can cope with a 56% population increase, or that the other regions are incapable of supporting industry.

I linked to an example of a successful industry in a small regional town, which you're trying to tell me is impossible. I remain puzzled as to the source of your assertion.

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

Maybe I'm missing something, but all I'm seeing from CSO are projected population numbers by region. I don't see anything to suggest that Dublin can cope with a 56% population increase, or that the other regions are incapable of supporting industry.

The statistics show a consistent trend over the last fifty years of migration from the regions to Dublin. That would suggest that Dublin is capable of attracting and retaining industry and that the regions are not.

oscarBravo wrote:

I linked to an example of a successful industry in a small regional town, which you're trying to tell me is impossible.

I didn't say impossible, I said it was very difficult, and that it was uneconomical and unsustainable without large government subsidies.

Carrick on Shannon has a population of about 3500. MBNA employs 1,100. The 2nd and 3rd biggest employers in Carrick on Shannon employ 80 and 75 people respectively.

oscarBravo

Tuars wrote:

The statistics show a consistent trend over the last fifty years of migration from the regions to Dublin. That would suggest that Dublin is capable of attracting and retaining industry and that the regions are not.

No, it suggests that Dublin has been capable of attracting and retaining industry over the past fifty years. The population projections are simple extrapolations, with no analysis of whether the city can cope with a 56% population increase.

Tuars wrote:

I didn't say impossible, I said it was very difficult, and that it was uneconomical and unsustainable without large government subsidies.

And I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you believe that to be the case. I'm not picking on you specifically. I'm targetting the prevalent mentality that assumes rural development is unsustainable without asking why, while also assuming urban development is sustainable without asking how.

Tuars wrote:

Carrick on Shannon has a population of about 3500. MBNA employs 1,100. The 2nd and 3rd biggest employers in Carrick on Shannon employ 80 and 75 people respectively.

Your point?

Calina

Tuars wrote:

The statistics show a consistent trend over the last fifty years of migration from the regions to Dublin. That would suggest that Dublin is capable of attracting and retaining industry and that the regions are not.

Not sure I agree to be honest with you. Over that time frame, there has also been a switch from labour intensive agricultural practice to non-labour intensive practices. All over the world, and through out history, such switches are accompanied by movement from rural to urban areas, and those urban areas haven't always (or even often) had replacement industrial jobs for the displaced ex-agricultural labourers.

Not only that, Dublin has really only been attracting industry on a large scale in the past 10-15 years, and I would contend that a reason it started attracting that industry is that some investment was made to attract that industry. An example of this (albeit a small one) would be the IFSC. Prior to the late eighties and more particularly, the early to mid nineties, I don't think things were that much better in Dublin than they were around the rest of the country.

In any case, I could be wrong here, but I wouldn't see the CSO figures as proof that Dublin is clearly industrially sustainable and the rest of the country is not. I see it as evidence to suggest planning on a national scale is lopsided at best. It's not sustainable for a country the size of Ireland have 1.5million people crammed into one small part of the island - this represents around 30% of the population. It puts a strain on natural resources, such as water supply and building land supply. Of course, the minute I say that, someone will pop up and say "well we could build up, for God's sake". Given the standards of building here, I wouldn't at all be happy about that, never mind the aesthetic arguments. Additionally, it concentrates political power in a small part of the country and I'm not entirely sure that it would be positive either.

About the only reason I've seen put forward for not investing in the regions is that it's not cost effective. I haven't seen any convincing supporting argument though. Lots of argument yes, but it all boils down to "it costs too much" which is rather circular.

As far as one-off housing is concerned, I'm not against it in principle. Of the figures cited by Ishmaele above, I'd be interested in seeing a breakdown of that 40% in terms of type, distance from settlements, existing houses within a mile, whether it falls between existing housing and a settlement. I find it difficult to believe that 100% of the one off houses built in the last few years are built in unsustainably isolated areas. My experience of housing developments is that the infrastructure argument isn't holding purely because the infrastructure improvements required when big housing estates are put in along narrow country roads at the edges of towns and villages have not, in my limited experience, been done. They wouldn't be necessary if the mass of people put in there was lower.

ishmael whale

Calina wrote:

In any case, I could be wrong here, but I wouldn't see the CSO figures as proof that Dublin is clearly industrially sustainable and the rest of the country is not.

There’s a well established assessment coming from the Spatial Strategy research that Dublin offers scale, and the absence of that scale in any regional location is a problem when attracting industry. The importance of scale is not really that controversial. Ed Walsh’s article posted above says it better than I can, and probably with more credibility as I don’t think anyone questions his commitment to regional development.

Calina wrote:

I see it as evidence to suggest planning on a national scale is lopsided at best.

What you see is not the result of planning, it was an absence of planning. The lack of scale in any regional centre was identified as a problem as far back as the Buchanon report which advocated the establishment of some large centres throughout the country as a counterbalance to Dublin, and argued that without this Dublin would continue to grow by default. I’ll let Noel Dempsey take up the story:

http://www.irishspatialstrategy.ie/docs/ministers_speech.doc
“There was a groundswell against Buchanan’s proposals. Local interests were put first … by a range of people… politicians, the local media, the public … with disastrous consequences for the country as a whole and for the west and midlands in particular. The report was “shelved” – because people were so parochial in their outlook that they couldn’t bear what they saw as neighbouring towns benefiting at the expense of their own localities. Buchanan was an opportunity wasted.”

Calina wrote:

About the only reason I've seen put forward for not investing in the regions is that it's not cost effective.

Its not ‘not investing in the regions’, so much as concentrating investment in a few locations so that it makes a difference. There’s been plenty of regional investment. Every county on the Western seaboard has it’s own airport except Limerick. But they don’t achieve much because all they really succeed in doing is ensuring that no location can develop the necessary economies of scale to compete with Dublin.

Calina wrote:

I find it difficult to believe that 100% of the one off houses built in the last few years are built in unsustainably isolated areas.

I have no more detailed information that what I’ve posted – but if you find anything more detailed I’m interested in knowing it. But I wonder at your disbelief. Policy on this issue is not being driven by any concept of sustainability. You may or may not know that the National Roads Authority have been reduced to appealing Clare Co. Council planning decisions on one-off housing because they conflict with road safety standards.

Tuars

oscarBravo wrote:

No, it suggests that Dublin has been capable of attracting and retaining industry over the past fifty years. The population projections are simple extrapolations, with no analysis of whether the city can cope with a 56% population increase.

What has changed that will make tomorrow different to yesterday?

oscarBravo wrote:

And I've repeatedly asked you to explain why you believe that to be the case. I'm not picking on you specifically. I'm targetting the prevalent mentality that assumes rural development is unsustainable without asking why, while also assuming urban development is sustainable without asking how.

If you take the time to read this thread and the referenced articles you will see that a case has been made. I haven't seen a credible counter argument yet.

Calina wrote:

Not sure I agree to be honest with you.

I can see why you're not sure because you actually are agreeing with much of what I have said .

Tuars

Calina wrote:

About the only reason I've seen put forward for not investing in the regions is that it's not cost effective. I haven't seen any convincing supporting argument though. Lots of argument yes, but it all boils down to "it costs too much" which is rather circular.

The core point of the argument against one-off housing is that it contributes to the excessive cost.

Calina wrote:

My experience of housing developments is that the infrastructure argument isn't holding purely because the infrastructure improvements required when big housing estates are put in along narrow country roads at the edges of towns and villages have not, in my limited experience, been done. They wouldn't be necessary if the mass of people put in there was lower.

You're going a bit circular yourself here...

Calina

Tuars wrote:

I can see why you're not sure because you actually are agreeing with much of what I have said .

In broad terms, yeah, but not really your interpretation of the CSO figures regarding the population development of Dublin. Mind you, your earlier comments about the lack of choice of house types in housing developments was dead on.

**********************

I'll have to come back to this later.

Calina

Ishmael,

having analysed what you have to say, I think broadly, you and I agree, with some detail issues, of which one off housing is chief. At least, I think you and I agree that Dublin is not sustainable and I think you and I agree that to move people out of Dublin will require major investment. The impression I'm getting, however, is that you are against that investment which leads me to wonder what vision of sustainable development you have in mind for the country as a whole since from what I can see, all development is currently unsustainable.

One off housing is largely an issue in under-populated areas. Based on your argument to date, you want those areas to remain under populated, or possibly, not populated at all. Me, I'm against wholesale out and out building wherever you like. But I don't limit that view just to one off housing. Some housing estates in urban areas are gone up in places they really should not be going up in, such as flood plains for the river Liffey. On the other hand, I don't see that small settlements are well served by continually being added to by housing estates. In some cases - quite a few cases - one or two families might want to move into a settlement, and there might not be existing available accommodation. I see nothing wrong with building a one off house in or near a settlement, be it a village or a town, under those circumstances. I suspect most of the settlements concerned, with an eye on their school numbers, would agree.

As for the NRA and Clare - I have the following to say. Certain counties, of which Clare is one, have terrible roads which carry a hefty amount of non-local traffic at certain times of the year. Naturally I'm biased of course, but I rather feel that this issue is of greater importance on the safety front than the occasional house is. As an added point, the NRA's activity on safety is rather inglorious, if I mention central reservations and chicken wire and motorways. And that's not that long ago.

I don't have more detailed statistics than you do - as I've made clear. But I do understand that the blanket stat reported by An Taisce is a deceptively simplistic view of things purely because it covers all cases but the Nix report, particularly in debunking the house at the end of the valley argument clearly suggest that there are some acceptable forms of one off housing. Additionally, the house of at the end of the valley argument is, on occasion, actually valid.

@Tuars: once more with feeling: the infrastructure argument would be a lot more acceptable if it were put into practice. Unfortunately, thanks to no infrastructure improvements and two big housing estates built along a country lane with no public transport, I enjoy non-moving traffic at certain times of the day and power cuts and water cuts on occasion. I live six miles from Dublin City Centre. Put simply, you can argue that the unit cost per inhabitant for infrastructure enhancement is a lot lower with a higher density set up. But my experience is those higher density developments make infrastructure enhancements necessary rather sooner, and what's more, they aren't being done, leading to the gross cost going up anyway. Oh yeah, and the unit cost as well.

************

ishmael whale

I suppose the general angle that I’m coming from is that a significant factor in the failure of regional policy to date has been the misdirection of resources. A particular feature of that misdirection is the spreading of resources too thinly to make any real impact – as in all but one Western seaboard county having its own little airport. I don’t have a problem with investing in regional development, so long as there is a reasonable expectation that the investment will yield a return.

One-off housing posing particular problems for infrastructural development, which sometimes don’t seem to be taken account of by regional development campaigners. An example would be Marian Harkin’s simultaneous support for even more relaxation of planning rules and for the Western Rail Corridor. The two propositions simply don’t gel, as rail is only efficient if you are moving large amounts of people between large cities. This is at the heart of my problem with regional policy to date. Resources get used for projects that, ultimately, do nothing to stop the continued growth of Dublin – so the capital ends up with more people, but without the wherewithal to go with them.

I’d see the plan to scatter central government offices over 50 locations as more of the same failed policy. It will take a lot of money to implement and achieve nothing, as the decentralised centres will still lack the scale to compete with Dublin. If, on the other hand, it was decided to move the Garda training college from Templemore and integrate it with, say, UCC or UL, I’d see that as the kind of thing that could contribute to the emergence of a regional centre that could compete with Dublin to attract industry. Similarly, ending the Shannon stopover so that Cork might be able to attract a transaltlantic service would be a positive step.

Chiefly, what it has to do with is promoting a concentration within the regions. Otherwise Dublin will simply continue to grow as it has in the past.