Urban-generated rural housing is coming under increasing scrutiny due to itsimpact on human health and social interaction, writes James Nix.
The one-off housing debate ignited in April 2001 when the Department of the Environment revealed that 30 to 40 per cent of annual home completions are single houses in the countryside. It was the first time a Government Department had published a breakdown figure on the location of new homes.
Attempts to curb one-off housing date to a 1976 study by An Foras Forbartha. The report, Urban Generated Housing in Rural Areas, contrasted the costs of servicing closely-knit development (five- metre house frontages) with dispersed residences (58-metre frontages).
It found that mail delivery to the widely-dispersed housing is 3½ times more expensive. Waste collection costs are 2½ times greater. Phone and electricity connections are between two and five times more expensive. Footpath provision and public lighting are 11 to 13 times more expensive.
According to An Foras Forbartha an "urban-generated rural dweller" lives in a single house in the countryside but works in a town or city. A missing link in the research on one-off housing is that we don't know the percentage of one-off housing which is actually urban-generated.
What we do know is that some counties are worse than others - 60 to 70 per cent of new housing in Galway and Wexford is one-off. The tailbacks on the N17 and N11 perhaps give some idea of the urban-generated proportion. In a pattern noted in 1976 and subsequently, one-off housing offers little scope for bus, bike or rail.
US planners are now beginning to put figures on the cost of the time we spend in cars. According to David Mogavero, urban-generated households in rural America face an annual cost of living $9,000 to $14,000 higher than their civic counterparts. His study broadly accords with work done on commuting patterns for 50 different cities by the UITP, an international transport think-tank.
The UITP study found that the closer homes and workplaces were located, the lower the cost of living. For example, annual transport expenditure in Copenhagen or Singapore is $3,000 less per inhabitant than in sprawling "regional centres" like Houston and Atlanta.
Urban-generated rural housing is coming under increasing scrutiny due to its impact on human health and social interaction. In its September 2003 edition, the American Journal of Public Health carries a series of articles showing lower levels of walking and cycling, higher levels of obesity and reduced community engagement in car-orientated housing.
Ireland is already the most car-dependent country in the world. We drive 24,400km per year compared to the US average of 19,000km, the UK at 16,100km, France at 14,100km and Germany at 12,700km, according to Transport Investment and Economic Development, which was published in 2000.
For Ireland one-off housing may also have a commercial fallout. Many local representatives, like Kerry's Michael Gleeson, acknowledge that one-off housing can hurt tourism.
Yet at a conference in Glendalough on September 3rd the Irish Rural Dwellers' Association signalled their intention to bring a constitutional challenge to the zoning laws which protect areas of outstanding natural beauty.
Tourism isn't the only industry affected. Dr Nicholas Bielenberg, president of the Irish Landholders' Association, is critical of the "non-agricultural forces" that boost the value of farmland.
There is some evidence that the price of agricultural land in Ireland is tracking the housing market and not the value of agri-produce.
While farm incomes dropped 8.5 per cent in 2002 the price of agricultural land rose by roughly the same amount. During the Celtic Tiger the price of land rose fastest in the years of greatest economic growth.
The late 1990s saw huge leaps (25 per cent in 1999 alone), with the increases tapering off since then (14 per cent during 2000, 9 per cent in 2001). Since 1997 Irish agriculture land values have overtaken Denmark and Germany, and risen significantly further ahead of Scotland and Wales.
With the distinction between urban and rural areas under threat, it is more difficult to establish partnerships between neighbouring farmers or to amalgamate holdings.
Almost 30 years ago An Foras Forbartha drew attention to the stark findings of Canadian research: "A growing body of experience has shown quite conclusively that uncontrolled urban growth in rural areas may create serious problems in the economy of the rural municipality.
"Uncontrolled urban growth is destructive of natural resources, produces health problems, strangles transportation systems. And it is responsible for clashes and uncertainties in urban and rural values, and has usually led to a high tax rate and/or low levels of municipal services."
The Canadian solution was to limit new rural house-building to those working full-time in the countryside, farm family members working the land on a full or part-time basis, and landholders who retire or sell their land with the intention of remaining in the countryside.
Importantly, village rejuvenation is receiving greater attention in north America where it is boosted by New Community Design. Under this model new houses and shops are arranged so that the easiest way to get from one to the other is on foot or by bike, the aim being to reintroduce walkable communities. A well laid-out park or town square is another key feature of New Community Design.
The recently-published Spatial Strategy picks up on this idea of revitalised villages: "Ireland needs to renew, consolidate and develop its existing cities, towns and villages, i.e. keeping them as physically compact and public transport friendly as possible and minimising urban sprawl, while also achieving a high quality of design in new development . . .
"Land needs to be used carefully, sensitively and efficiently with the aim of reducing dereliction and under-utilisation.
"Where greenfield development is necessary it should take place through the logical extension of existing cities, towns and villages".
Mr Martin Cullen's statement last Saturday emphasises the "local economic contribution" to be made by people who build one-off houses. Arguably, the approach of Government could be more proactive. Confining new rural housing to a narrow set of planning applicants goes hand in hand with new parks, paths and roads to unlock towns and villages?
James Nix is a barrister and a specialist in transport policy
Threshold populations for shops / services:
(Type of facility first followed by minimum population)
Shop - 150
Primary School - 700
Post Office - 1,500
Library - 2,000
Doctor - 2,000
Dentist - 3,000
Post Primary School - 4,000
Source: An Foras Forbartha