Discussion on our response to global warming and climate change becomes unduly polarised between points of view held by eco-activists on the one hand and sceptics on the other. Without needless controversy, there are some serious issues on which I believe fair-minded discussion is badly needed. One of these issues is that of what is often referred to as one-off rural housing.
Older ordnance survey maps show a proliferation of black rectangles signifying dwelling houses profusely scattered over our rural landscape. In many cases, such dwellings have disappeared in the last seventy years by ruination or transformation into agricultural sheds. A walk down many rural byroads shows how many such dwellings are no longer used for human habitation.
The new orthodoxy disapproves of one-off rural homebuilding, save in very exceptional circumstances. This orthodoxy affirms a very strong preference for planning guidelines that encourage new homebuilding outside cities to be located in towns and villages rather than being scattered across the countryside. Sustainability arguments are made in support of this policy based on claims that concentration of dwellings reduces the need and cost of transport, provision of social infrastructure, provision of services such as water, waste management, energy and telecommunications, and ease of access to schools, shops and commercial outlets.
While not discounting such considerations entirely, there are other considerations, including individual’s legitimate choice, sustaining rural community life and activities, sustaining multi-generational family life, and privacy which are equally legitimate arguments in favour of diffusion of dwellings across rural areas.
Just because a one-off home is not connected with agriculture does not raise a doubt about its legitimacy or set at nought the strong wish of many to live in such homes rather than in towns and villages.
Put another way, if you suggested to many current one-off home dwellers that they would be happier or wealthier if their home location were swapped for a village or town, I expect the vast majority of them would decline such a swap for perfectly legitimate reasons. The suggestion that people are, or ought to be, equally or more happy to live in villages or towns simply does not ring true.
Yes, one-off rural housing may require greater transport needs in the form of cars. But there is little reason to expect inhabitants of villages and smaller towns to forego access to private cars.
Yes, school bus provision is a social cost in rural Ireland. But is that cost bearable when set against the legitimate desires of people to live outside cities, small towns and villages? Renovating derelict rural houses is usually seen as a good thing. But why is building homes in areas where houses once existed but have disappeared a bad thing? If town and village life is so more sensible and attractive, how come there is so little effective interest in living above the shop in so many small rural towns?
When there are so many who greatly desire to live in rural settings provided that they have good telecommunication and basic access to energy, should we deny them that choice as a matter of policy?
In addition, when we regard sustainability as a virtue, ought we not consider social sustainability of rural community and multi-generational family life as well? It is not only the GAA which laments migration of population from rural parishes and districts to towns and cities.
True, there are arguments in relation to wastewater treatment, percolation and ground water contamination. But huge advances have been made in the technology of wastewater disposal and control. Others point out that rural Ireland lacks safe footpaths for walkers and cyclists. Perhaps we should invest more heavily in such areas.
Government has indicated a general wish to liberalise planning regimes in respect of one-off housing.
Suffice it to say that established policy against one-off rural housing may need to be challenged and, I think, relaxed in the context of escalating population, escalating building costs (particularly building costs of urban apartments) and avoiding suburban sprawl.
A recent Primetime programme highlighted the folly of overly restricting car parking in new urban estates. Planning guidelines that restrict car spaces to one per dwelling simply do not take into account the needs of many ordinary households. Other stricter guidelines even prohibit any car spaces for apartments where public transport is available.
For a huge number of people no foreseeable provision of public transport suffices to meet their individual and family needs. Even if every private car were electric, there would still remain a vast demand for privately owned cars. For many, many people cars are hugely liberating, positive, as well as necessary, possessions. They aren’t all bad. Public transport in the shape of trains, buses, bikes, and walking are so often no adequate substitute.
It’s not really a simplistic issue of fossil fuels or top-down planning precepts. Real people, real multi-generational families, real rural communities and real choice badly need a rethink free from overly strict orthodox ideologies.