An Taisce's campaign against one-off homes in rural areas is not based on trivial concerns about taste or an anti-rural agenda. An Taisce is acting in the public interest to create a climate for a rural rejuvenation, argues Michael Smith
Several recent articles published in this newspaper on one-off housing fail to acknowledge the reasons why new one-off housing is against the public interest. The analysis of both Robert O'Byrne and Michael Viney is - as always - thoughtful, but incomplete. Michael Viney (Irish Times, May 18th) thinks An Taisce's policies on one-off housing are "determined by predominantly urban taste in landscape".
Similarly, Robert O'Byrne (May 7th) thinks "the debate needs to be not about whether development should take place, but about the design and character of that development". In other words, they are saying the debate is about taste, about the way things look.
It is not. It is about the way things are. About how one-off houses affect us as people - socially, economically and environmentally. An Taisce's premise is that the environment is for people and that because of this the future for necessary rural rejuvenation should be rural towns and villages. One-off housing waters down the energy that will be necessary for widescale rural rejuvenation.
Our policies are pro-rural. This is not surprising since we have 23 county associations countrywide (including an incipient one in Mayo). Because we run Green Schools and Blue Flags programmes and have published a programme on coastal development in partnership with Mayo County Council, Mayo has never been what Mr Viney describes as "terra incognita" for An Taisce.
The comparative unsustainability of one-off housing is clear under each of the three heads: social, economic and environmental.
Social:
Increased traffic
We are naïve if we do not see that the time we waste in traffic is proportionate to the car-dependence of the new developments we plan. An Taisce wants future developments to minimise car-based commuting. Clearly it is easier to provide public transport for larger communities than for one-off developments in the open countryside.
Reduced socialising
In the US, Robert Putnam's important book, Bowling Alone, suggests that every extra 10 minutes spent commuting implies a 10 per cent reduction in social connections. Time spent commuting reduces time spent with children and friends.
Demographic time-bomb
One-off housing constitutes a time-bomb because in 30 years as a population we will have aged dramatically. As people grow old, and sometimes too infirm to use cars, it is crucial that they should not be far from local services. We cannot ignore this phenomenon.
One-off not a solution to affordability crisis
One-off-housing provides no solution to the housing crisis since it provides solutions only for those lucky enough to own sites. Indeed, one-off housing probably increases prices. A 1996 paper by Kevin Heanue, "The Affordability Gap for Housing in Peripheral Rural Areas", notes that a high proportion of one-off houses in many areas are holiday homes, and that this reduces the affordability of housing for local people. Mr Heanue notes: "In North West Connemara, the housing and property market is primarily influenced by demand from outside the area for second homes . . . As a consequence of this external demand, house and property prices are disproportionately high compared to low local incomes and potential access to property and housing by local residents is severely curtailed."
Outside demand tends "to increase the rates that local building contractors charge for their services, which in turn restricts the ability of local residents with appropriate sites to build their own homes. These higher construction charges also filter through to the rental market, increasing those prices." As long ago as 1996, Mr Heanue noted that second homes accounted for sixty-four64 per cent of the housing stock in three townlands south of Clifden.
Economic:
Increased costs of servicing
Towns and villages require less servicing per unit than single isolated development. It is more costly - for the locality and the taxpayer nationally - to service one-off units (with roads, postal services, etc) than denser housing.
Reduced economies of scale
All things being equal, it is more expensive for house-builders because they lose the benefit of economies of scale. In fact, distortions of site costs in the open countryside relative to in villages usually make it cheaper for the developer, though not for the community, to build one-off. For example, according to the book After the Celtic Tiger, "A three-bedroom house can be supplied for about €125,000. This compares with a price in the order of €180,000 upwards for a house in a cluster development." We at An Taisce argue for a balancing of this effect through provision of incentives (and compulsory purchase orders) for development in villages.
Damage to Tourism
Widespread one-off housing insensitive to landscapes is beginning to undermine our tourist industry.
Environmental:
Pollution of water
One-off developments are liable to do more damage to groundwater (per unit built) than larger communities. Some 38 per cent of Irish groundwater is already polluted with E.coli. Writing last October in the GSI Groundwater Newsletter, Donal Daly says: "There can be no doubt that groundwater and wells have been contaminated by effluent from conventional septic tank systems."
Damage to landscape
One-off housing generates disproportionate land-take, as well as, in many cases, aesthetic blight and damage to the landscape.
But Robert O'Byrne and Michael Viney think that this matter can be resolved by a change in tone and through consensus. We wish. Capital gains of €810,000,000 annually will accrue to those who own sites for one-off houses, according to the authors of After the Celtic Tiger. That's €8.1 billion over the next decade. In many counties over two thirds of housing is built in the open countryside (compared to less that 1 per cent in Britain and the European Community) That is the scale of the vested interest An Taisce is taking on.
An Taisce alone has outlined a mechanism for reducing urban sprawl and car-commuting, reversing rural decline and providing high-quality affordable housing for all who need it. I look forward to the next phase of the debate: people reading our wide-ranging policies. They're available if you e-mail info@antaisce.org
An Taisce undertook this campaign in the public interest. We were forced to act once it became clear that the government's indicative spatial strategy would not deal with the problem. One-off housing is a planning time-bomb.
We need viable alternatives. Above all, we need political leadership now before the anticipated scale of development over the next decade quickly renders it too late.
Michael Smith is chairman of An Taisce,
the National Trust for Ireland