One-off housing and rural decline

Sir, – A letter writer states, “It is of course bizarre to state that post offices and banks may have remained open if the inhabitants of one-off houses had lived in town” (September 20th).

This will come as news to An Post, which has said that where there is a community of 500 or more, the post office will stay open. No doubt other local businesses, like pubs, grocers and petrol stations, have – or had – their own criteria, largely related to the local population, for remaining open or closing down. The number of small businesses that have chosen to close – or been forced to close – by falling population in small towns and villages speaks for itself.

Your letter writer also states that “suitable sites or homes are difficult (and often expensive) to find”.

There is a simple solution – restrict permissions for one-off housing to those who must live in rural areas, like farmers and those who will take over farms, and rezone sufficient areas of land adjoining villages and small towns. The market will take care of the rest.

READ MORE

If not, compulsory purchase orders will.

One-off housing is essentially a bonanza for rural landowners and works against the common good. A large part of the cost of public services for these houses is borne by urban dwellers.

When it was announced that no more plans for one-off houses would be accepted by local authorities in Northern Ireland, “The move ended a stampede which has seen planning departments all but overwhelmed by tens of thousands of speculative plans”, the BBC reported.

The then-planning minister said: “We are wasting the countryside by pepper-potting it with dwellings that are not sustainable – which require motorcars, which require massive numbers of septic tanks, which actually help destroy communities. What we need to do is preserve the villages and towns by enabling them to grow.”

If only we had the sense to do the same in the Republic. – Yours, etc,

ANTHONY O’LEARY,

Portmarnock,

Co Dublin.