High-density housing initiatives are not the only answer for rural people, who are frustrated by an arbitrary and obtuse planning process, writes Colm O'Riain.
Recent Government housing policy initiatives seem to be dominated by the concept of sustainable development, which has in turn been largely characterised by directives encouraging mainly higher-density, inner city-based apartment developments. Much of the resulting debate has concentrated on the perceived negative physical impact of low-density suburban housing and one-off rural houses on the local environment.
However, little consideration would appear to have been given to date to the social dimension of these policy initiatives even within the limited housing strategies adopted by some local authorities in response to the Planning Act 2000.
Moreover, there is a dangerous myth being championed by the main professional building associations: that difficulties in meeting housing demands can be largely met by the introduction of large-scale, high-density housing blocks in city areas and by campaigning against low-rise housing, which is regarded as unsustainable.
Such propaganda fails to underline that these high-density developments generally involve compact apartment units with little or no private open space, except for the ubiquitous metal balcony, artificially ventilated and lighted kitchens and bathrooms, and often only ill-defined and limited communal open space.
Crèches are often proposed as an answer to the needs of young children within a family structure and small-scale coffee shops or similar facilities are regarded as adequate signs of genuine community focus.
Such restricted physical responses to community needs are at best short-sighted and could result in the imposition of severe restraints on family-based community structures and adversely affect social cohesion.
However, the White Paper on Rural Development, published in 1999, may offer a more broadly based guideline to redress the deficiencies of the sustainable development debate.
This White Paper introduced the concept of "rural proofing" as a core objective of all Government policies and interventions directed towards improving the physical, economic and social conditions of people living in the rural countryside or smaller urban areas, by attempting to facilitate balanced and sustainable regional development. In this respect, the current National Development Plan represents the first practical example of this "rural proofing" process, where specific economic and social indicators are measured.
This new emphasis in Government policy represents a broad multi-sectoral approach to rural development and should, if applied in the context of the country as a whole, avoid the narrow perspective adopted by many in the national media.
Nevertheless, despite this comprehensive and balanced approach being proposed at national level, it is at the local level of planning screening for one-off or small-scale development initiatives that much of the current malaise finds its most bitter manifestation.
The main reason for this unsatisfactory situation is that the core emphasis of local planning policies is almost exclusively place related, with little or no attempt being made to assess any community context for such development. Although certain exemptions are often included in local development plans for families engaged in farming activities and living in the immediate area, they often do not respond to more general community needs. This deficiency is further aggravated by inconsistent local authority policies.
However, the most fundamental limitation of current planning control mechanisms, whether exercised at local authority or centralised Bord Pleanála level, is that they fail to respond to the dynamic nature of environmental change itself.
Since desirable and acceptable conditions vary, it would appear that fixed standards cannot be universally applied. Rather it is suggested that a range of housing indices should be applied to the planning control process, divided into environmental standards (soft) and standards for materials and components (hard), which would be adaptable to different requirements.
This would allow the planning function to respond more generally to the needs of a broader community-based social structure. It would allow planning applicants to differentiate, for example, between broad amenity (soft) or service provision (hard) standards and allow them to respond accordingly to planning decisions. However, the current preoccupation with layers of bureaucratic procedures often obscures the rationale behind the decision-making process while demanding ever-increasing and costly documentation from applicants.
The result of this rather arbitrary, time-consuming, expensive and obtuse planning control process is that decisions are made and advice sought from an ever-increasing number of technical experts or special interest groups, while many applicants are left unaware of the progress of their application.
The changes being implemented under the Planning Act 2000 singularly fail to address this problem and probably aggravate it.
In many rural areas, local community associations have not only taken the initiative in the provision of educational classes for young and old alike, but has also spearheaded a drive for new housing for the elderly by forming their own housing associations and by the development of local sports facilities in association with the GAA and other bodies.
Perhaps the structure of such community initiatives could form the basis of a greater clarity in the nature and scale of appropriate housing provision, whether one-off or group schemes, in a particular area.
The local authority could act as a facilitator for such initiatives rather than as an arbitrary prohibitor of them.
The promotion of apartment schemes, however sustainable in density terms, cannot guarantee social and community cohesion. It should be noted that the rural bungalow form of development so despised by the modern building professional can in fact act as a medium of high flexibility in adapting to family life in its many and varied stages, despite the scorn which is heaped upon it by some urban commentators.
It is for this reason that they are so beloved by the Irish people who have long seen them as the hallmark of their definition of "home".
In a country so relatively unpopulated as our own, it should not be beyond our capabilities to respond to such housing aspirations, at least in rural areas, by better community-based planning policies, the introduction of more flexible and community-based control mechanisms in the assessment of planning applications, and by the introduction of clear statutory controls in the provision of finance for and disposal of rural property.
To seek a change in the current blanket ban on many one-off rural houses, I feel that some at least of these houses should be seen in the context of the need to re-enforce existing local community structures but also in terms of providing necessary housing at a time when the housing list is growing ever larger.
At a broader level, the new National Spatial Plan being introduced by the Government could offer a regional context for such local initiatives.
If, for example, distinct areas close to existing "village settlements" were rezoned for housing and an estimate placed upon the number of houses in each county that would be included in a one-off housing initiative, then this could be launched by the Government as not only a rural community initiative but also a positive response to the current shortfall in house building.
Such limited initiatives are more likely to achieve a balance between the wish of rural dwellers for adequate housing and the desire of environmentalists to protect the landscape.
Any comprehensive initiative in the sphere of sustainable development must set an objective of reinforcing social and physical domains within an existing community structure. High-density, developer-based initiatives alone cannot adequately address housing needs.
Only if such housing initiatives are adopted locally and nationally, are carefully focused and linked to specific and attainable goals, and exercised within an efficient, responsive and democratic planning process, can they hope to win community support and succeed in meeting community needs.
Colm O'Riain is an architect and town planner