Sir, - With 36 per cent of housing being built one-off ("wildcat") in the countryside and the possibility of another 20 per cent being built as Dublin-oriented, car-dependent suburban sprawl in counties Wicklow, Meath and Kildare (and beyond), I would prefer to be writing about strategic planning rather than addressing the fact-free, ad hominem prejudices of Rose Mary Logue (May 22nd).
She writes that "An Taisce's motivation frequently seems to be the preservation of its members' traditional way of life - residence in nice Georgian piles". Without wasting too much time on her I note that she also refers to the usual garbage about natives in gate lodges, compliant staff and even huddled croppies (yawn). This may play well in certain salons in Dundrum but it is dangerously distracting nonsense. If anyone who cares about planning thinks this is characteristic of An Taisce, join up and make it better. It's easy to join (014541786).
An Taisce is simply Ireland's oldest and biggest wide-ranging environmental organisation. It tries to take the long-term public interest stance on planning matters with community, quality of life and sustainability orientations. As it happens, none of the 52 members of its council who represent its 27 county associations, as well as including planners, architects, farmers, artisans, students, etc., fit Ms Logue's ranting stereotypes. (Would it matter if they did?).
As for the facts, unlike the sensitive development of rural towns and villages which An Taisce promotes, one-off housing is generally unsustainable. It is unsustainable socially: as people grow old it is undesirable that they should be far from local services such as doctors, social services, meals on wheels, as well as shops, pubs, bingo and libraries. It is unsustainable environmentally: one-off housing generates septic-tank seepage, light pollution and disproportionate land-take, as well as, in many cases, aesthetic blight. It also induces unsustainable car dependency in an era where we are well over our Kyoto COs2] emission targets. It is also unsustainable economically: it is more costly for the owner and for the locality to service (with roads, electricity, telephones, postal services, etc.) one-off units than village housing.
It is the economic arguments that are being lost in the debate. This may be due to the absence of local taxes. Much of the one-off syndrome postdates 1977, when domestic rates were abolished. By contrast, in the US for example, many communities do not allow one-off housing - because the community knows, and has to pay, the inflated costs. If communities, or housebuilders, had to pay for the true costs - economic, social and environmental - of their one-off houses, the phenomenon would disappear overnight. It is An Taisce's role to draw attention to this. - Yours, etc.,
Michael Smith, National Chairman, An Taisce, Tailors Hall, Dublin 8.