Closed Shop Planning, LOCALS ONLY

I spotted this on daft. It simply has to be unconstitutional and needs to be challenged.

Yeah, its much better to ban all rural housing. There is too much of it already

On a social level it’s apartheid as planning policy. It’s either a republic or a collection of reservations.

We don’t really have to much of anything it’s still a country with a very low population density. On one hand you have very porous border policy but eugenics like local planning.

Sounds like someone got planning on the pretext that they would be living “over the shop” as in farming their family lands.
Now they are trying to sell, effectively breaching the planning conditions, anyone who buys and builds may be challenged with unauthorised development.

The local authorities are very mindful of the costs involved in maintaining a disperse infrastructure and are trying to prevent those costs escalating any further.
Pollution from septic tanks, extra costs involved in providing healthcare to remote elderly residents and the list goes on. This is before you start to factor in the possibility of future energy shortages (peak oil has only been postponed!) and the congestion on the roads as all of these dwellers have to commute long distances to work.

if this site was in the Midlands, it would be completely abandoned!

Sprang immediately to mind. :smiley:

I’m sure Amnesty and the like will be only too happy to campaign on this issue - once some dark skinned person just arrived in from the other side of the world wants to live there. Then it’ll be a Human Rights matter…

Many a true word spoken in jest! :smiling_imp:

We like to pomote inbreeding in this country.

Very difficult to get planning for once off housing anywhere in the country unless you were born there. And, even if you were born in the locality, forget about it if you were born in an estate or within the town planning area.

link to ruling?

Ireland has been fairly unusual (in the EU) as one of the few countries where people have been allowed to build in granddad’s field, most other countries have all but stopped the construction of random one-off housing in the countryside.
In the UK for example, the only way to build in the countryside is to buy an old house and replace it.

And if you were familiar with rural England you would know that the biggest complaint of the locals is the fact that their kids / grandkids have to move away because of the impossibility of them finding / building houses. Because the townies push up the prices of what stock is available, as second homes / holiday homes. Or else push through very strict green belt / county development planning laws. The rich townies can still Build their “one offs”. Because they are deemed of “architectural merit”. Which is why the English countryside is now mostly an agribusiness landscape museum. Pretty, but dead.

When I drive down the narrow country roads of a particular part of Ireland I dont see a ribbon development of “one offs” so derided by townies. I see homes mostly inhabited by the children and grandchildren of the local families I knew as a kid. A few were sold on, but most have not. Giving at least some local continuity. Delaying, for at least one more generation, the compete breakup of rural family communities.

Ireland (unlike most of the rest of the EU) has had a scattered settlement pattern going back several thousand years. The Irish never did cities, or even towns. More of a farmstead , hamlet culture. “One offs” are just the continuation of the historical pattern. Break it and the rural family culture goes too. You can have postcard pretty countryside, or you can have a healthy rural community. You can’t have both.

I thought the transformation of rural England was brought about by mergers of small farms more than planning restrictions. I’ve seen this cited in articles about hunting, which used to be a hobby for farmers but is now kept alive by second homers.

Ireland has clung to small scale family farming for longer, but from what I’ve heard this might be on the brink of falling apart for lack of willing young bodies rather than strict economic or policy reasons.

The main problem is the lack of local high value productive jobs to pay for houses at any price. The countryside, and not just in Ireland, is now an economic wasteland, apart from that low employment agribusiness that you so deride. Furthermore, it’s dead set against an influx of nasty, dirty industrial and commercial development that both the locals and the immigrant townies want to keep out.
We don’t need peasants, when there are places where €5K a year farming the land is a decent income and €10K puts you very comfortably in the middle class at local purchasing power. From a utilitarian perspective, the rich world’s flight from the countryside is a good thing, if it allows us to move to jobs that add greater value and allows people in poorer places to get richer and have better and less wasteful lives.

A farm is like an oil refinery. Both occupy a lot of space; both provide useful products; both involve extensive supply chains that need workers, all adding value, upstream and downstream, and both are, in their own way, attractive, but neither need to employ a lot of unskilled people locally.

Given that concentration of residence and employment increases the efficiency of service provision, the best thing that can happen to the countryside for both for the environment and the people, is depopulation and the migration of everybody who doesn’t need to be there to somewhere that actually has an economy and opportunities for everybody whose livelihood doesn’t absolutely depend on being out in the sticks.

In the specific case of Ireland, given the existing population size and distribution, Dublin is too big and diffuse, Cork, Galway, Limerick, Waterford and Sligo are too small and almost everywhere else is basically a waste of time.

I know it will have some people screaming blue murder, but I’m in favour of rural depopulation.

There; I’ve gone and said it. Dunk me in the duckpond or nail me to a cross; I don’t care. :smiling_imp: :smiley:

We moved into a village (with my parents) in the early 1970s when they bought an old farm building and replaced it with a house.
So I was raised in rural England and many of us left the village when we grew up, most of those who stayed either ended up in council houses or inherited the parents house. Several of the houses were bought as holiday or weekend homes by people who worked in London and quite a few by retired people from the city.

The village is far from dead as there are still families who have lived in the area for generations, but it has to be said that it has become more of a “dormitory” village in recent times.

As for scattered settlements, well, the enclosures acts in the 18th century put an end to that.

I wouldn’t say that I am in favour of rural depopulation, but I do see it as inevitable in the future as the costs involved in living out in the sticks unless you need to will soon make it too expensive to stay. Commuting is expensive in time as well as money and if road pricing comes in will get ever more costly to drive to the “big smoke” to work.

The worst thing about this is the ridiculously high cost of accommodation in the cities right now.

I can just about see the sense of it in Clare, but it is a complete and utter bullshit rule in Fingal Fingal is a region in county dublin FFS.

Just look at the “greenbelt” around London, it has almost become a battlefield between developers, local authorities and numerous vested interests.

Everywhere has an economy. And what services are you talking about? If a critical mass is required to achieve some arbitrary level of service and efficiency then clearly the argument should be for the repopulation of rural communities. Technology is making the provision of services cheaper, easier and more efficient for all.

You seem to have a very bitter, restricted view on life. Not everybody wants to rub elbows with eejits wearing indoor sunglasses, slurping skinny mochaccinos, while engaging in bullshit chitchat about recreation shopping. Get out of the city. Live a little.

I refuse to believe in this argument of continuity unless presented with evidence that these are genuinely rustic people rather than city slickers living out of their element.

The people who lived in hamlets in AD 1000 were true people of the soil. They knew how to take a patch of land of 100 square yards and manage a garden that would feed them year round. They knew how to forage, where to look for edible roots, how to fish using only their hands.

A country dweller who only knows how to drive to the local Mace and watch Netflix and waste time on playstation is not preserving a time-honoured tradition. That tradition was severed forever when they decided to ignore the true meaning of non-urban living and simply become an urban person in a faux-pastoral setting.

It’s as fake as a person who pretends to be an accountant but wouldn’t have the first clue what to do with an Excel spreadsheet.